What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4726749?

The tribunal order states: Harmandeep Singh must pay Tara Papple and Keith Rauba $2,345.63

How much money was awarded in case 4726749?

Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $2,256.43 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide pro…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $289.28 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $41.96 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4726749?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4726749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10293998-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4726749?

The tribunal order states: Harmandeep Singh must pay Tara Papple and Keith Rauba $2,345.63

How much money was awarded in case 4726749?

Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $2,256.43 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to provide pro…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $289.28 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $41.96 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4726749?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4726749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10293998-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

243 Waiuku-Otaua Road, Waiuku, RD 2, Waiuku 2682 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4726749 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4726749 — net $2,345.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 October 2024	$289.28		Rent arrears to 25 October 2024
Water rates	$41.96		Water rates
Compensation: Failure to provide property in a		$400.00	Failure to provide property in a
Compensation: Failure to maintain		$2,256.43	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$331.24	$2,676.87
Net award		$2,345.63
Bond		$2,700.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,345.63

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4726749 — net $2,345.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 October 2024	$289.28		Rent arrears to 25 October 2024
Water rates	$41.96		Water rates
Compensation: Failure to provide property in a		$400.00	Failure to provide property in a
Compensation: Failure to maintain		$2,256.43	Failure to maintain
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$331.24	$2,676.87
Net award		$2,345.63
Bond		$2,700.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,345.63

Order

Harmandeep Singh must pay Tara Papple and Keith Rauba $2,345.63 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,700.00 (5808930-008) to Tara Papple and Keith Rauba immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held today.
The tenancy began on the 1 July 2023 and ended after the tenant’s gave notice and handed back the keys.
The house is an older 3-bedroom weatherboard house in a rural location. The claims
The tenants filed their application first they claim: a) That the landlord failed to provide and maintain the premises to a reasonable standard. b) The landlord failed to comply with healthy homes standards. c) That the landlord did not provide the house to them in reasonably clean and tidy condition. d) That the property had no working smoke alarms.
The tenants seek an award of $8000.00 in compensation for the above claims and the return of their bond.
The landlord’s claims. a) That the tenants owe rent to the landlord’s new tenancy began on the 30 October 2023. (1 Week rent). b) Owe water rates of $41.96. c) That the tenants did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. d) That the tenants damaged the property in particular they broke a window at the property and broke 3 elements on the stove.
The tenants accept that they owe the water rates of $41.96. The tenants’ claims. Did the landlord give the property to the tenants in a reasonably clean and tidy condition?
The tenants’ claim that the landlord did not provide the premises in a reasonable condition, that the stove was dirty, and that they had to remove rubbish around the exterior of the property and the former tenant’s belongings from the garage.
The landlord accepts that the tenants cleaned up the outside of the property and removed the former tenant’s belongings which had been left in the garage into a skip bin which the landlord provided and paid for. The landlord says that he understood that the tenants had agreed to do that because they wanted to get into the house quicker, and he did not have time to clean the exterior. He says the interior of the property was clean and tidy.
Both parties showed me photographs that they had taken of the property at the beginning of the tenancy. The interior was largely to a reasonably clean and tidy condition except for the stove which was very dirty. I accept that the tenant had to clean the stove so she could use it. I am satisfied that the landlord did not provide the stove in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
I am also satisfied that the tenants had to clean up the exterior of the property and remove the former tenant’s belongings into the skip bin the landlord provided. The tenants should have been compensated for this. The obligation is on the landlord to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, and this includes removing the former tenant’s belongings and cleaning up the exterior of the property. It was only when the tenants complained to the landlord that the landlord agreed to get a skip bin, the landlord did not offer to fill the skip bin. The tenants should be compensated for their time in completing this work and cleaning the oven, I award them $400 in compensation for this work.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the property?

The tenants claim in their application: “Landlord wouldn't get house up to standards even though he signed off healthy homes report we had to all sleep-in lounge as rooms were unusable due to gaps in windows and no suffering heating. We were paying 675 per week from the day we moved 1st July 2023 until 26th October 2023 to only be [able] to sleep in one room the other 2 rooms were unusable due to mold dampness and gaps in windows.” (sic)
Under s45(1)(b) landlords have an obligation to: provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
Tenants also have a corresponding obligation to notify the landlord promptly of any defects or damage at the property, so that the landlord can attend to repairing or maintaining those items. See s40(1)(d) RTA.
Ms Papples did not attend the inspection pre tenancy as she was unwell. However, once she moved into the property, she completed the inspection report at the back of the tenancy agreement and had given that to the landlord by the 14 July 2023. I am satisfied that the landlord was given the updated inspection report by that date because the tenancy agreement that he had with him today included the tenant’s inspection report filled out by the tenant and she confirmed in a text of 14 July that she had left the completed tenancy agreement with the updated inspection report in the letter box on 14 July 2023.
The tenancy inspection report completed by the landlord and the tenant (as at 14 July 2023) notes a number of issues with the property including: a) No smoke alarms. b) Windowpane missing in the laundry. c) Holes in the flooring in the lounge and bedroom (covered by carpet). d) Holes in the bedroom door e) Holes in the door jam in bedroom. f) Window latch missing in bedroom meaning window did not close properly. g) Cracked window in the dining room. h) Cupboard broken in dining room.
Soon after moving into the property the tenants broke a window in the kitchen whilst cleaning the windowsills, they notified the landlord and offered to replace the window, which they accepted liability for. However, when they got a tradesperson out to fix the window the tradesperson advised that the whole window frame needed to be replaced as it had rotted away, and the glass could not be installed into the current frame. The tenants told the landlord of this in a text. Despite this, the landlord did not inspect or send anyone else out to investigate or fix the problem for the remainder of the tenancy. The windows in the dining room and laundry which were either missing or cracked before the tenancy began were never fixed.
The tenant also says that 3 elements in the stove were broken, but there is no record of that in the inspection report. The tenants recorded the condition of the stove as “unusable, dirty worn and disgusting.” The landlord says that he turned the stove elements on at the beginning of the tenancy, whilst showing Mr Rauba through and they worked, but that is disputed by the tenant who says that when he was shown through the tenancy the landlord did not turn on the stove elements.
The tenants told the landlord that the house was cold and complained of mould on the curtains at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenants say the landlord did bring them new curtains but apart from that did no other maintenance at the property.
The tenants were so concerned about the living conditions that on the 10 October 2023, they obtained a Healthy Homes Assessment report from the Healthy Homes New Zealand. That report supports the tenant’s claims that the property was not in a reasonable condition at the beginning or throughout the tenancy. In particular there was numerous areas where there were draughts caused by rotten window frames, windows that were unable to close properly and the cracks and holes in the windows. The report notes that draughts can be felt in almost all rooms.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not provide and maintain the house to the tenants in a reasonable condition throughout this tenancy in particular, that there were obvious rotten window joinery that allowed air to flow though that were not repaired, the window jamb was so badly rotten in the kitchen that a new glass pane could not be installed and the tenants had to live in the property with a broken window in the kitchen for the whole tenancy. The cracked window in the dining room was not fixed and the laundry pane was not replaced. I am also satisfied that there was large hole in one bedroom (noted by the landlord in the tenancy agreement) and shown in the photographs. The shower head was also broken and could not be affixed in one position. The tenants had to rig up the shower hose using cable ties and rubber bands.
The tenants tell me that they had to sleep in the living area right under the heat pump, they also purchased a heater for their daughters’ rooms, and they say they had to run the heat pump, heaters and dehumidifiers constantly to try and heat the house.
The tenant and their daughters suffer from some serious health conditions, which the landlord was aware of, the failure to provide a house that was in a reasonable condition by not fixing the window and joinery made the house cold and draughty. The tenants tell me that their medical conditions were exacerbated by the cold and draughts.
The landlord says that the tenants did not raise issues about the broken windows or ask for him to repair the windows or window latches, they say that the tenants accepted the house at the beginning of the tenancy in that condition after doing a walk through 1 . The landlord says it is also difficult to get tradesperson to the site although he produced no evidence which showed that they had contacted tradespeople during this tenancy.
I am also satisfied that the landlord did not provide working smoke alarms in the property throughout the tenancy. The lack of smoke alarms in the premises was raised by the tenant in the inspection, and the landlord took no steps to rectify the situation. Luckily there was no fire during the tenancy. Had there been the consequences may have been dire.
Compensation should restore party to the position that they would have been in had the breach not occurred. The tenants have suffered a lack of amenity in that they should have had a house which meet minimum maintenance standards such as joinery that was not rotten and broken windows and gaps in joinery. As a result of the failure to maintain the house was draughty and cold.
I consider that award of $135 per week should be made. This takes into account the added cost of heating the premises, the inability to use the premises fully, the inconvenience and stress of living with a large hole in the kitchen window. The 1 A landlord and tenant cannot agree to contract out of the provisions of the RTA. If the RTA provides that a landlord must keep the property to a certain standard then acceptance of a house that does not meet those standards by the tenant, does not mean that the landlord is released from his obligation to comply with the RTA. total award is $ 2256.43 being 16 weeks and 5 days at $135 per week compensation.

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenants have also applied for a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. All private tenancies that commenced after 1 July 2021 must comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. As this tenancy commenced after the 28 August 2022 then the landlord had 120 days to comply with Healthy Homes Standards. This tenancy did not last 120 days (It was 117 days) therefore there can be no breach by the landlord. I record however that the tenants’ Healthy Homes assessment paints a bleak picture of the property with failures of the insulation, heating, draught stopping, ventilation and moisture and drainage standards. I understand that the landlord has re-rented this tenancy. I trust that the landlord has or will now bring the home up to meet the Healthy Homes Standards. The landlord’s claims.

How much is owed for rent?

After the tenants obtained the healthy homes assessment, they considered the property uninhabitable. They told the landlord on the 14 October that they wished to leave the premises. The landlord accepted that they could give two weeks’ notice in a text message. The tenant moved on the 20 October 2023 but did not hand back the keys until the 25 October. There is a considerable amount of text messages between the landlord and the tenant about when the keys would be returned, the landlord agrees that the tenant can return the keys on the 25 October. The landlord tells me that the new tenancy started on either the 30 or 31 October 2023, but that the landlord accepted a bond for the new tenancy on the 23 October.
The landlord did not produce a rent statement showing the rent paid, but the tenants always paid in advance and the landlord says that the tenants paid on the 16 for the week 16-22 October. This was not disputed by the tenants. I am satisfied that the landlord should be paid for the 23, 24 and 25 October (3 days). At which point the landlord accepted the tenants had surrendered the tenancy, and the landlord had secured new tenants.

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 tenant’s obligation is to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state and free from rubbish. Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 2 , not commercially clean 3 , spotless hotel or motel standard. 4 Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 5
What is reasonably clean, and tidy is an “objective assessment to be made after consideration of tall of the evidence” Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-085-1441,17 December 2008.
I have viewed the tenants and the landlord photographs and I am satisfied that the tenants left the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. In fact, I consider that the tenants left the property in a better condition that what they found it.
The landlord’s claim that the tenants left the property in an unreasonable condition is dismissed.
The landlord claimed that the tenants left rubbish at the property because they left the recycling out to be collected. There was no evidence provided by the landlord that the recycling was not collected. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for rubbish removal is also dismissed.
The other items left in the garage belonged to the previous tenants and not these tenants.

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.
I am satisfied that the tenants caused the kitchen widow to break but could not repair it because of the landlord’s failure to repair the rotten timber frames. I do not consider it reasonable to expect the tenant to pay for a window to be repaired in those circumstances.
The landlord also claimed that the tenants broke 3 elements on the stove, but there was insufficient evidence to satisfy me that the elements were working or not working at the beginning and end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s claim for damages to the property are dismissed. Filing fee. 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at 8. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009. 4 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998. 5 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008
Because Tara Papple, Keith Rauba has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4726749 — State of repair at 243 Waiuku-Otaua Road, Waiuku, RD 2, Waiuku 2682

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4726749 — State of repair at 243 Waiuku-Otaua Road, Waiuku, RD 2, Waiuku 2682

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the property?

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the property?

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions