What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4727729?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (3503415-009) to Aimin He

How much money was awarded in case 4727729?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Reimbursement Of Fixed Water Charges…: $271.81 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4727729?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4727729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10503303-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4727729?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (3503415-009) to Aimin He

How much money was awarded in case 4727729?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Reimbursement Of Fixed Water Charges…: $271.81 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4727729?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4727729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10503303-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Cron Avenue, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4727729 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4727729 — net $292.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Reimbursement of fixed water charges (by consent	$271.81	Reimbursement of fixed water charges (by consent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$292.25
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$292.25

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4727729 — net $292.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Reimbursement of fixed water charges (by consent	$271.81	Reimbursement of fixed water charges (by consent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$292.25
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$292.25

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (3503415-009) to Aimin He immediately.
The landlords are to pay the sum of $292.25 to the Tenant as set out in the table below:
The tenant’s claims in respect of breaches of Healthy Homes standards, failure to maintain and for exemplary damages are dismissed.

Reasons

Both landlords attended the hearing and were assisted by a Mandarin interpreter. The tenant appeared and was represented by her husband, Mr Alexander.
The tenant’s application only named Ms Huo as landlord but the tenancy agreement clearly states that both Ms Huo and Mr Shi are landlords. I have therefore included both parties as landlords in this order.
This claim concerns the tenancy of a three bedroom house located in Te Atatu South, Auckland. The tenancy began on 10 October 2022 and ended on 9 October 2023.
The tenant has filed claims against the landlord for refund of the bond, refund of fixed water charges, breach of Healthy Homes standards, failure to maintain, and for exemplary damages on the basis of various alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Onus of proof and evidence
This is a claim by the tenant and so the onus is on the tenant to prove their claims to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities). If I find any claim not proven it does not necessarily mean that the party bringing the claim was wrong, but it does mean that there was not sufficient evidence for me to find that claim proved.
For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence submitted in this decision, but the parties should be assured that I have carefully considered all of the evidence in making this decision. Bond
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlords say that they have a claim against the bond, but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. Fixed water charges
The tenant said that they paid the entire water bills during the tenancy (including fixed charges) on the understanding that the fixed charges would be refunded at the end of the tenancy. They sought reimbursement of $271.81.
The fixed charges are the responsibility of the landlord (see section 57(3) RTA) and should not have been charged to the tenant.
The landlord agreed that the tenant was not responsible for the fixed charges and that the tenant’s calculation of the fixed charges was correct. I therefore order, by consent, that the landlord reimburse the tenant the fixed charges of $271.81. Healthy Homes standards
The tenant claims that the landlords are in breach of the Healthy Homes standards in respect of draught stopping, insulation and ventilation.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
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 tenant claims that: a. There were draughts around the windows and that the curtains would move and that the house was cold particularly the bedrooms; b. A dark water mark appeared on the ceiling in the lounge leading them to think that the insulation in the ceiling must have become wet, but this was not remedied; and c. The extractor fan in the bathroom was not powerful enough and they had to constantly clean mould.
The tenant said that she and her husband raised the issues of the draughts and ventilation throughout the tenancy with the landlord and that nothing was done. Mr Alexander said at the hearing that the landlord inspected the property every two months and that they would raise the issue with them then, and that they were told to get more blankets if they were cold.
The landlord denied that the home was not Healthy Homes compliant. They produced a Healthy Homes Assessment Report dated 26 September 2022 (just prior to the start of the tenancy) from FM Construction Service Limited. The report shows that the property has passed the Healthy Homes standards in respect of insulation, ventilation and draught stopping.
The tenant said that the landlord’s report was done by them or their company and cannot be relied upon. The landlord denied this and said that they simply looked for a company online and engaged them as they provided Healthy Homes reports. The tenants did not have any evidence proving any association with the landlord. I performed a quick company search which shows that neither of the landlords are director or shareholders. There appears to be no basis for the tenant’s allegations.
The tenant has not filed her own Healthy Homes Assessment Report and has not filed any evidence proving the draughts and that the bathroom extractor fan was not compliant. These claims are therefore dismissed.
The report records that the property complies with the insulation standard and so that claim is also dismissed. Failure to maintain – ceiling leak
At the hearing I noted that the tenant’s claim in respect of the insulation in the ceiling was not so much a Healthy Homes standards claim (as there was, in fact, insulation) but a failure to maintain claim. Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA landlord are required to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant said that after heavy rain a dark patch appeared on the ceiling in the lounge. The tenant provided a photo of the area which shows a relatively small, yellowish patch at the edge of the ceiling. They said the landlord came to have a look at the issue when notified but did not conduct any repairs.
The landlords said that they contacted the tenant on 6 February 2023 after an extreme weather event in Auckland. They asked if there had been any damage to the property. The landlord produced a series of text messages with the tenant where the tenant initially confirmed that there were no issues but then sent them a photo of the ceiling area.
The landlords said that on seeing the photo they immediately contacted their insurer who send an assessor to the property. It was found that a roofing tile had lifted in the storm and that this had allowed some water in. The cost to replace the roofing tile was less than the excess of $500 so they did not proceed with the claim but they replaced the tile and that there was no issue with the insulation.
The landlord provided copies of the correspondence with their insurer (7 February 2023) and the assessor (20 February 2023) and with the tenant confirming that a tile had been responsible for the issue. It appears to me that the landlord has dealt with this issue promptly.
The claim in respect of the insulation is not proved and is dismissed. Failure to maintain/standards of cleanliness - cockroaches
The tenant claimed further that there were cockroaches at the property that would come inside and were all over the bench. The tenant said that the landlord did nothing about the problem.
The tenant did not provide any photos of cockroaches or copies of any correspondence with the landlord about the issue.
This claim is not proven and is dismissed. Failure to maintain – net curtain and shower curtain
The tenant claims that the net curtain in one of the bedrooms and the shower curtain were in poor condition and had to be replaced. Mr Alexander explained that they purchased new ones and left them behind at the end of the tenancy. The tenant claimed the amount of $20.00 ($10 each).
The landlord disputed the claim. The tenant did not have any photos of any item, any correspondence with the landlord regarding the issue or any receipts for the replacement items.
This claim is not proved and is dismissed. Misleading conduct/failure to provide healthy homes information
These claims were listed as separate claims but the tenant explained at the hearing that they were based on the landlord providing incorrect and misleading information in the statement regarding Healthy Homes compliance as set out in the tenancy agreement.
The tenant has not proved that there is anything misleading in the healthy homes information provided in the tenancy agreement. The healthy homes statement in the tenancy agreement is consistent with the healthy Homes report obtained by the landlord.
These claims are dismissed. Refund of key money
The tenant filed a claim for refund of key money but it appears this was based on the tenant cutting new keys for the property. This claim was withdrawn at the hearing and I did not need to consider it. Requesting minor change (stopping draughts)
The tenant filed a claim for breach of the landlord’s obligations when a minor change is requested (draught stopping).
It is unreasonable for a landlord to withhold consent to a minor change to premises. See 42B(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
In my view this is essentially the same claim as the breach of Healthy Homes standards claim already dealt with above and, as already found, the property complied with the standards. Landlord seizing possessions
The tenant claims that the landlord seized their possessions.
A landlord must not seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods, except where they are disposed of under sections 62 to 62C of the RTA. See section 33(1) and (4) RTA.
The tenant says that when they left the property they accidentally left their lawnmower and other garden items in the space under the house. They then left the keys in the house when they vacated, including the key to under the house, and the landlord did not allow them access to collect their items.
The tenant went to the police and made an allegation of theft and the police contacted the landlord. The landlord provided copies of correspondence with the police. In the correspondence the landlord said that they were concerned for their safety and asked the police to attend when they opened the garage. The police responded to say that they did not have the resources to do so and that they should arrange for a friend or relative to assist. The landlord said that this is why they had three male employees attend. The landlord produced messages asking the tenant to attend at 7pm on 15 October 2023.
The landlord said that it was the tenants who made an error and that they were away at the time. They said that they made arrangements with their staff who attended at the property on 15 October 2023 and allowed the tenants access and that they removed the items.
Having reviewed the evidence I do not consider that there was any intention on the part of the landlords to seize the tenant’s goods. The tenant simply left their goods behind and there was a short delay in the landlord providing access due to the landlords being away. Breaching duties in respect of bond
The tenant says that when they paid the bond the landlord did not lodge it at the bond centre and did not give them a receipt. They said that they did not know what had happened with the bond money.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.
At the hearing the landlord produced a bond lodgement form signed by the tenant on 30 September 2022, a letter from Tenancy Services dated 13 October 2022 confirming that the bond had been received on 10 October 2022 and a copy of their bank statement showing the transfer of the bond to the Bond Centre on 10 October 2022.
This claim is not proven and is dismissed. Retaliatory notice
The tenant says that, after they raised issues during the tenancy, the landlord gave notice ending their tenancy. They said that the landlords said that one of their parents would move into the property but when they went back to collect their items two weeks later there were three men at the property who said that they had moved in.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said that they gave notice to end the tenancy because Ms Guo’s parents wanted to travel to New Zealand and they decided that the best option for them would be to stay in the property. They gave notice accordingly. The landlord said that the tenant did not raise any issues during the tenancy except the water stain on the ceiling, which was dealt with. They said that the three men at the property were employees working there before Ms Guo’s mother moved in. They confirmed that Ms Guo’s mother did in fact move in.
The landlord produced email correspondence with the tenant on 5 July 2024 giving notice on the basis that Ms Guo’s parents were coming to New Zealand. The email correspondence was written in Chinese but the interpreter provided a translation during the hearing.
In response to the notice the tenant offered to pay an increased rental but this was rejected by Ms Guo who said that the rental had nothing to do with giving notice and that they needed the property for her parents. The tenant then responded saying that her son had moved to Wellington and so she and her husband would look for a two bedroom property instead.
Having considered all of the evidence I do not find this claim proven. The tenant has not proven that the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement of any Act or any complaint against the landlord. This claim is dismissed. Harassment and discrimination
The tenant claims that the landlords discriminated against her and harassed her.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant referred me to various correspondence from the landlords, sent after the tenancy had ended, in the context of the discussions regarding the collection of the tenant’s lawnmower and garden items.
Having reviewed the correspondence I do not consider that the landlord has discriminated against, or harassed, the tenant. The tenancy had ended in any event. Filing fee
The tenant has only been successful in her claim for the bond and for the refund of the fixed water charges. She has not been successful on any other issue. However I had refunded the filing fee as the tenant should not have had to file a claim to recover her bond in circumstances where the landlord had no legitimate claim over the bond.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4727729 — Tenancy dispute at 20 Cron Avenue, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4727729 — Tenancy dispute at 20 Cron Avenue, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions