What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4652596?

The tribunal order states: Tessa Lewis must pay Nai-Hsin (Anita) Kang and David Yixing Jiang $1,725.66

How much money was awarded in case 4652596?

Barstools And Coat Hangers: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss of food, sundry b…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $375.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Internet: $102.00 awarded to landlord; Power: $176.30 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6.20 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $167.33 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,760.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $38.83 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4652596?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4652596?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9667648-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4652596?

The tribunal order states: Tessa Lewis must pay Nai-Hsin (Anita) Kang and David Yixing Jiang $1,725.66

How much money was awarded in case 4652596?

Barstools And Coat Hangers: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss of food, sundry b…: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $375.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Internet: $102.00 awarded to landlord; Power: $176.30 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6.20 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $167.33 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,760.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $38.83 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4652596?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4652596?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9667648-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 2 Railway Street, Newmarket, Auckland 1023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4652596 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4652596 — net $1,725.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 27 August 2023	$3,760.00		Rent arrears to 27 August 2023
Water rates	$38.83		Water rates
Power	$176.30		Power
Internet	$102.00		Internet
Lock/key replacement	$6.20		Lock/key replacement
Barstools and coat hangers	$30.00		Barstools and coat hangers
Window repairs	$167.33		Window repairs
Exemplary damages: Moisture ingress		$400.00	Moisture ingress
Exemplary damages: Heating		$100.00	Heating
Exemplary damages: Not lodging bond		$375.00	Not lodging bond
Exemplary damages: Quiet enjoyment		$200.00	Quiet enjoyment
Compensation: Loss of food, sundry belongings		$100.00	Loss of food, sundry belongings
Refund of bond		$1,380.00	Refund of bond
Total award	$4,280.66	$2,555.00
Net award	$1,725.66
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,725.66

Order

Tessa Lewis must pay Nai-Hsin (Anita) Kang and David Yixing Jiang $1,725.66 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages and refund of the filing fee.

How much is owed for rent, electricity, internet and water rates?

A tenant is required under section 50(2B) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to give 28 days’ notice to leave a tenancy.
The tenant moved out of the property on 30 July 2023. The following day, the tenant gave notice to the landlord they had moved out. At this time the tenant was four weeks in rent arrears. The notice period would have brought the tenancy to a close on 27 August 2023.
The landlord is seeking the four weeks unpaid rent, and the further four weeks rent in lieu of notice. This amounts to $3,760.00.
The landlord provided water rates, electricity and internet provider invoices which prove the amounts owing at the end of the tenancy were $38.83, $176.30, and $102.00 respectively. The tenant accepted these amounts.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Did the tenant meet 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 tenant did not return a key and the landlord is seeking $6.20 compensation for this. An invoice establishing this amount was provided to the Tribunal.
The landlord is also seeking $82.75 for two barstools and some coat hangers that the tenant disposed of during the tenancy.
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.
A bathroom window was broken during the tenancy. This was more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant did not dispute liability. An invoice for $167.33 was provided to the Tribunal.
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 amounts ordered are proved. The tenant’s claims
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Breach of tenant’s quiet enjoyment
The tenant claims the landlord entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
On 29 June 2023 the landlord attended at the neighbour’s property, initially to remedy a problem that was causing a water leak to the tenant’s property. In the course of doing this he also attended at the tenant’s property without giving notice. This was an urgent matter, but it wasn’t an emergency. The tenant’s partner was home and challenged the landlord. A verbal altercation resulted.
The landlord is not the landlord of the neighbouring property. It was foreseeable that he would need to attend at the tenant’s property also. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
This was the first and only breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment during the tenancy, and it consisted of work being done to the outside of the premises. As such it was initially a minor incursion on the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. However, tensions were already heightened between the landlord and the tenant following months of ongoing issues with leaks. The lack of notice resulted in an altercation which would have been avoided if the landlord had complied with their lawful requirements.
I consider the breach to be at the low end but I consider the public interest in compliance to be high. Not lodging the bond with the Bond Centre
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
The tenant stated that it wasn’t until she gave notice on 30 July 2023 that she discovered the landlord had not lodged the bond with Bond Centre. The landlord stated that he had had a verbal agreement with the tenant that he would look after the bond. The tenant disputes this. The landlord stated that he had recorded the receipt of the bond on the tenancy agreement.
There is no dispute that the landlord did not send the bond to the Bond Centre. The requirement to do so cannot be contracted out of by way of a verbal agreement. The landlord’s intent for doing so is self-serving and brings many risks to bare on a considerable sum of the tenant’s money.
This is the first breach of this requirement by this landlord that I am aware of, but it is a serious breach. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act. Healthy Homes Standards
The tenant claims 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 tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard and the HHS heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances, but these aren’t applicable in this case.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The breach involved leaks to the property on numerous occasions; the tenant said there were major leaks on five occasions, and in total some leaks on twenty to thirty occasions.
The major leak events involved water coming in around the kitchen windows in multiple places, along some of the scotia in the lounge, around the front door, and through the heat pump. There was some pooling in the ceiling in the lounge and eventually some of the ceiling fell away.
The leaks caused mental stress to the tenant; they needed to move belongings around the house to avoid the leaks, they had to come home early from work when it rained. When it rained at night the tenant would stay awake to deal with any problems. The tenant stated that they had thrown out linen, a suitcase, food and personal belongings that were damaged by the leaks, and by mould which resulted from the leaks.
The tenant stated that the problems always seemed to be dealt with by low-cost solutions that sometimes took a long time to be undertaken. For example, the problems leading to the leaks on 13 December 2022 were not remedied for two months, by which time there had been two further major leak events, on 24 January 2023 and 27 January 2023.
The landlord stated that every time they were notified, they attended and did their best to remedy the problem. The major leak events coincided with extreme weather events that occurred in Auckland at the end of 2022 and early 2023. There were several different causes for the leaks which the landlord sought to remedy as they were detected. The landlord was also hampered by the unavailability of his preferred roofer.
I accept there were extreme weather events during this tenancy. In this case I have determined that the landlord’s actions in addressing the moisture ingress issues at this property was not quick enough or far reaching enough to avoid being intentionally in breach of his requirements. In this regard the landlord has committed an unlawful act. The effect on the tenant was significant inconvenience, disruption to their daily lives, and mental stress from December 2022 to July 2023.
I factor the landlord’s actions as mitigation.
The landlord provided information that the heat pump exceeded calculations that it was required to fulfil. However the tenant raised issues with water coming in through the heat pump which was consistent with the landlord’s evidence that the heat pump unit on the roof had been blown over in a storm. The tenant also raised issues about the smell of mould coming from the heat pump, and not being able to use it for extended periods because of their concerns over its safety.
The lack of useability of the heat pump contributed to the issue with mould at the property. The tenant stated they had an ongoing problem with mould in cupboards and other areas of the property.
The landlord raised that the tenant needed to keep the windows closed at the property as they had a small pet cat. This compromised their ability to adequately ventilate the property. This was not disputed by the tenant.
The landlord also pointed out that for the several weeks between the tenant vacating the property and the new tenants moving into the property, the property was vacant and in this time there was no issue with mould.
During the winter months of 2023 there were problems with the heat pump. I determine that the landlord has breached the heating standard in not maintaining the heat pump or providing an alternative source of heating through this time. I accept the landlord was addressing other urgent issues at the property. None the less, the breach had a significant impact on the tenant. The public interest in landlords providing and maintaining adequate heating is high.
As both parties have breached their obligations under the act, and both parties have been partially successful with their claims, I am not ordering suppression of their details and I am not ordering reimbursement of the filing fees.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4652596 — net $1,725.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 27 August 2023	$3,760.00		Rent arrears to 27 August 2023
Water rates	$38.83		Water rates
Power	$176.30		Power
Internet	$102.00		Internet
Lock/key replacement	$6.20		Lock/key replacement
Barstools and coat hangers	$30.00		Barstools and coat hangers
Window repairs	$167.33		Window repairs
Exemplary damages: Moisture ingress		$400.00	Moisture ingress
Exemplary damages: Heating		$100.00	Heating
Exemplary damages: Not lodging bond		$375.00	Not lodging bond
Exemplary damages: Quiet enjoyment		$200.00	Quiet enjoyment
Compensation: Loss of food, sundry belongings		$100.00	Loss of food, sundry belongings
Refund of bond		$1,380.00	Refund of bond
Total award	$4,280.66	$2,555.00
Net award	$1,725.66
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,725.66

Order

Tessa Lewis must pay Nai-Hsin (Anita) Kang and David Yixing Jiang $1,725.66 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages and refund of the filing fee.

How much is owed for rent, electricity, internet and water rates?

A tenant is required under section 50(2B) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to give 28 days’ notice to leave a tenancy.
The tenant moved out of the property on 30 July 2023. The following day, the tenant gave notice to the landlord they had moved out. At this time the tenant was four weeks in rent arrears. The notice period would have brought the tenancy to a close on 27 August 2023.
The landlord is seeking the four weeks unpaid rent, and the further four weeks rent in lieu of notice. This amounts to $3,760.00.
The landlord provided water rates, electricity and internet provider invoices which prove the amounts owing at the end of the tenancy were $38.83, $176.30, and $102.00 respectively. The tenant accepted these amounts.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Did the tenant meet 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 tenant did not return a key and the landlord is seeking $6.20 compensation for this. An invoice establishing this amount was provided to the Tribunal.
The landlord is also seeking $82.75 for two barstools and some coat hangers that the tenant disposed of during the tenancy.
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.
A bathroom window was broken during the tenancy. This was more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant did not dispute liability. An invoice for $167.33 was provided to the Tribunal.
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 amounts ordered are proved. The tenant’s claims
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Breach of tenant’s quiet enjoyment
The tenant claims the landlord entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
On 29 June 2023 the landlord attended at the neighbour’s property, initially to remedy a problem that was causing a water leak to the tenant’s property. In the course of doing this he also attended at the tenant’s property without giving notice. This was an urgent matter, but it wasn’t an emergency. The tenant’s partner was home and challenged the landlord. A verbal altercation resulted.
The landlord is not the landlord of the neighbouring property. It was foreseeable that he would need to attend at the tenant’s property also. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
This was the first and only breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment during the tenancy, and it consisted of work being done to the outside of the premises. As such it was initially a minor incursion on the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. However, tensions were already heightened between the landlord and the tenant following months of ongoing issues with leaks. The lack of notice resulted in an altercation which would have been avoided if the landlord had complied with their lawful requirements.
I consider the breach to be at the low end but I consider the public interest in compliance to be high. Not lodging the bond with the Bond Centre
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
The tenant stated that it wasn’t until she gave notice on 30 July 2023 that she discovered the landlord had not lodged the bond with Bond Centre. The landlord stated that he had had a verbal agreement with the tenant that he would look after the bond. The tenant disputes this. The landlord stated that he had recorded the receipt of the bond on the tenancy agreement.
There is no dispute that the landlord did not send the bond to the Bond Centre. The requirement to do so cannot be contracted out of by way of a verbal agreement. The landlord’s intent for doing so is self-serving and brings many risks to bare on a considerable sum of the tenant’s money.
This is the first breach of this requirement by this landlord that I am aware of, but it is a serious breach. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act. Healthy Homes Standards
The tenant claims 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 tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard and the HHS heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances, but these aren’t applicable in this case.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The breach involved leaks to the property on numerous occasions; the tenant said there were major leaks on five occasions, and in total some leaks on twenty to thirty occasions.
The major leak events involved water coming in around the kitchen windows in multiple places, along some of the scotia in the lounge, around the front door, and through the heat pump. There was some pooling in the ceiling in the lounge and eventually some of the ceiling fell away.
The leaks caused mental stress to the tenant; they needed to move belongings around the house to avoid the leaks, they had to come home early from work when it rained. When it rained at night the tenant would stay awake to deal with any problems. The tenant stated that they had thrown out linen, a suitcase, food and personal belongings that were damaged by the leaks, and by mould which resulted from the leaks.
The tenant stated that the problems always seemed to be dealt with by low-cost solutions that sometimes took a long time to be undertaken. For example, the problems leading to the leaks on 13 December 2022 were not remedied for two months, by which time there had been two further major leak events, on 24 January 2023 and 27 January 2023.
The landlord stated that every time they were notified, they attended and did their best to remedy the problem. The major leak events coincided with extreme weather events that occurred in Auckland at the end of 2022 and early 2023. There were several different causes for the leaks which the landlord sought to remedy as they were detected. The landlord was also hampered by the unavailability of his preferred roofer.
I accept there were extreme weather events during this tenancy. In this case I have determined that the landlord’s actions in addressing the moisture ingress issues at this property was not quick enough or far reaching enough to avoid being intentionally in breach of his requirements. In this regard the landlord has committed an unlawful act. The effect on the tenant was significant inconvenience, disruption to their daily lives, and mental stress from December 2022 to July 2023.
I factor the landlord’s actions as mitigation.
The landlord provided information that the heat pump exceeded calculations that it was required to fulfil. However the tenant raised issues with water coming in through the heat pump which was consistent with the landlord’s evidence that the heat pump unit on the roof had been blown over in a storm. The tenant also raised issues about the smell of mould coming from the heat pump, and not being able to use it for extended periods because of their concerns over its safety.
The lack of useability of the heat pump contributed to the issue with mould at the property. The tenant stated they had an ongoing problem with mould in cupboards and other areas of the property.
The landlord raised that the tenant needed to keep the windows closed at the property as they had a small pet cat. This compromised their ability to adequately ventilate the property. This was not disputed by the tenant.
The landlord also pointed out that for the several weeks between the tenant vacating the property and the new tenants moving into the property, the property was vacant and in this time there was no issue with mould.
During the winter months of 2023 there were problems with the heat pump. I determine that the landlord has breached the heating standard in not maintaining the heat pump or providing an alternative source of heating through this time. I accept the landlord was addressing other urgent issues at the property. None the less, the breach had a significant impact on the tenant. The public interest in landlords providing and maintaining adequate heating is high.
As both parties have breached their obligations under the act, and both parties have been partially successful with their claims, I am not ordering suppression of their details and I am not ordering reimbursement of the filing fees.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4652596 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 3, 2 Railway Street, Newmarket, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4652596 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 3, 2 Railway Street, Newmarket, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent, electricity, internet and water rates?

Did the tenant meet their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent, electricity, internet and water rates?

Did the tenant meet their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions