What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4729151?

The tribunal order states: Best Life Group Limited must pay Neela Van Staden $10,575.09 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4729151?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4729151?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4729151?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10260542-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4729151?

The tribunal order states: Best Life Group Limited must pay Neela Van Staden $10,575.09 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4729151?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4729151?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4729151?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10260542-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

903 East Coast Road, Northcross, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4729151 — State of repair

Order

Best Life Group Limited must pay Neela Van Staden $10,575.09 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing for herself.
Jessica Jiang attended for Best Life Group Limited (“Best Life”).
The tenant applies for compensation for the landlord failing to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and for breaching its insulation obligations. 1
The landlord has applied for compensation for costs incurred after the tenancy had ended. Introduction
The tenants lived at the tenancy address for a little more than ten years. They moved in on 16 February 2013 and remained until 25 October 2023 by which time the premises needed a lot of remediation work.
The original landlord sold the property to Best Life in 2016. Best Life is a small private company that owns this property and one other. Ms Liang runs the company.
The tenant lived at the premises with her two teenage sons. She says Best Life failed to properly maintain the premises. She was reticent about complaining about problems at the premises for fear the landlord would increase the rent or terminate the tenancy. She only complained about the more serious problems at the premises such as the roof leaking, or door locks failing.
Even then, she says, the landlord failed to fix the reported problems in a timely and effective way. It took the landlord weeks or months to carry out repairs and the repairs that were done were typically done poorly by the landlord’s unqualified husband and/or unqualified friends. Consequently, the repairs were of dubious quality. For example, when the landlord replaced a leaking toilet it did not even remove an old wooden cistern. When it repaired a section of rotting bathroom wall, it just inserted some vinyl sheet over the affected area without properly treating the underlying decay.
The tenant says the house’s roof began to leak from April 2017. The landlord only carried out stop-gap roof-taping and took about 10 months to reinstate mouldy ceiling panels. As a result, her boys’ bedroom ceilings were infested with mould for long periods. She believes the mould and damp severely impacted their health. 1 The tenant did not apply for exemplary damages under s 109(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Therefore, they are not available as a remedy.
The landlord taped the roof up on about 9 June 2019. The mouldy ceilings were painted over on about 1 September 2019. The temporary roof repairs sufficed until about May 2023. The leaks returned in earnest and several decayed windows failed. The landlord tried to get its insurance company to provide cover, so delayed necessary weathertightness repairs up to and beyond the tenant’s departure from the premises in October of 2023.
The landlord says when the tenant moved out, she did not leave the premises reasonably clean, mow the lawns, remove all of her rubbish, did not return the keys, and damaged a wall during the tenancy. Issues for determination
The issues arising for determination are: a. Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard of repair, or breach its insulation duties? b. Did the tenant fail to meet her move-out duties or damage the premises?

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Legal principles

Under s 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1969 (RTA), landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. That provision provides: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) ... (b) 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...
Landlords are liable for defects that they have knowledge of. They must repair defects within a reasonable time once they acquire such knowledge. As the author of Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand explains: 2 2 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (2018) Thomson Reuters at 6.18. The landlord’s obligation of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage... A landlord therefore must repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair: 3 “...the obligation of the landlord, under s 45, is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be...”
Tenants have a duty to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repair. 4 However, Landlords also have an obligation to repair things that are apparent from observation: 5 However, notice from the tenant is not needed if the landlords knew of the need for repair or the need for repair is apparent from observation... Leaking 2017-2019
The tenant first raised concerns with the landlord about leaking on 5 April 2017, when she noticed a small hole in the ceiling caused by water ingress. That was more than six years prior to the claim being laid so it is outside the six-year timeframe allowed to bring money claims under the Limitation Act 2010.
The tenant complained of water leak problems again on 31 October 2018, forwarding photographs of her sons’ bedroom ceiling covered in mould. Water leaked through the roof and down the lounge/master bedroom wall cavity. The leaks noticeably affected the master bedroom’s wall and floor, and the kitchen and bathroom walls. The tenant’s sons’ bedroom ceilings were layered in mould suggesting leaking into the ceilings. Eventually, the ceilings sagged. By July 2019, another hole appeared in the lounge ceiling.
The tenant infers that the ceiling insulation must have been damaged.
The landlord roof-taped up problem areas in the roof on 9 June 2019, which stopped the leaks for a time. The ceilings were patched and painted by about 1 September 2019.
I find it proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord did not maintain the premises to a reasonable standard by failing to properly repair the leaks which began no later than 31 October 2018. No “full” repair was completed until 1 September 2019. 3 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009-085-1431, 24 February 2010 at [15]. 4 RTA, s 40(1)(d). 5 See n 2.
I place full in quotes because the quality of the repair work could not properly be described by that word.
The tenant suffered significant loss of amenity in the premises which merits compensation being ordered.
For the initial period from 31 October 2018 to the roof repair on 9 June 2019, I set compensation at the rate of 25 percent of $598.00 per week. 6 That amounts to $4,741.29. For 10 June to 1 September 2019, when the mouldy ceilings were painted, compensation is set at 20 per cent. That amounts to $1,435.20. Leaking from 6 May 2023
The leaking problems recurred from after the Auckland Anniversary weekend and Cyclone Gabrielle rain bombs. The tenant reported the leaking on 6 May 2023.
The lounge/master bedroom wall cavity began to leak again, and the mould resurfaced. Mould infused the kitchen wallpaper. The kitchen ceiling became was damp and mouldy. The bathroom wall paint was cracking away from the walls due to damp. The bathroom tiles began to lift due to moisture. Water leaked through the master bedroom’s skirting boards and seeped into the wall at one of the corners, making the paint lift. The kitchen window’s frame rotted away resulting in the window glass almost falling out and water leaked through one of the lounge windows. Mould penetrated the internal lounge door.
Again the landlord failed to maintain the premises to a reasonable state of repair from 6 May to 31 October 2023. I calculate the loss of amenity for compensation at 20 per cent. The total for that period is $2,955.83. Poor repair workmanship and general disrepair
As well as the leaks, the tenant encountered other house maintenance problems.
For example, part of the bathroom wall rotted away in July of 2022.
The wall was amateurishly repaired by applying some vinyl sheets over the damaged wall and inserting a piece of wood over the damaged window frame area. The piece of wood was never painted even though it was in a wet area. 6 I did not receive evidence about the weekly rent at that time. It was $598.00 at its highest and was held at that level for a considerable time. I consider is appropriate to use $598.00 as the figure to calculate loss of amenity from even if the weekly rent at the time may have been slightly less.
The landlord replaced the old leaking toilet on about 30 July 2018, but the old toilet’s wooden cistern was not removed.
When the landlord replaced the worn out old stove, it was with a second hand stove, which while an acceptable option, indicates the landlord maintained the premises parsimoniously.
The front door lock wore out on about 29 November 2019 and was not replaced until 2 February 2020. The back door’s lock also failed on about 15 June 2021 and was not repaired until 3 December 2020.
By way of further example, window repairs in 2023 were crudely done, using copious putty for the lounge window and pieces of wood and Perspex for the kitchen window.
Moreover, maintenance work was frequently deferred longer than it should have been. The walls were not repainted, or the damaged wallpaper replaced. Several curtains were worn out and damaged by mould. Some of the wooden floors were damaged by mould and the polyurethane or oil worn off. The deck had decayed to the extent that the tenant paid for a contractor out of her own pocket to make it safe.
In summary, the landlord only addressed the most serious maintenance concerns reported by the tenant. It did not attend to the general deterioration and decay of the house which the photographs show would have been obvious from observation.
The combination of deferred maintenance and poor workmanship of major defects amounts to a failure to maintain to a reasonable standard.
I set the start date for the failure from 30 July 2019, when the toilet was replaced, to the end of the tenancy on 25 October 2023. I set the rate for loss of amenity is at 2.5 percent. The total amount of compensation for this is $3,329.58. Insulation
The roof leaks may have damaged the house’s insulation. However, the Tribunal has already made orders for the loss of amenity for the leaks.
It is not necessary to further consider compensation for the insulation being damaged. Conclusion
The tenant has proven that the landlord failed to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard of repair.
Compensation for loss of amenity is ordered in the sum of $12,461.90.
Exemplary damages are not available as a remedy because the tenant did not formally apply for exemplary damages prior to the hearing. They would probably have been ordered if they had been asked for prior to the hearing date.

Did the tenant fail to meet her move-out duties or damage the premises?

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

At the end of their tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 7 :
Similarly, the landlord must provide the premises to the tenant in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the beginning of the tenancy. 8
Similarly, the tenant must return the premises to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. “Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard an average bystander. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, or commercially clean, hotel or motel standard. A landlord therefore may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant and cannot claim the cost of that to the tenant.
A tenant does not have to leave the premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of the tenancy. A claim for cleaning may be dismissed if there is no proof of the premises’ condition at the start of the tenancy. 9
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the landlord is seeking to recover cleaning costs. Therefore, the landlord must prove that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 7 RTA, s 40(1)(e)(iii). 8 RTA, s 45(1)(a). 9 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018) at
12.
The landlord produced some photographs of selected parts of the premises after the tenancy ended, showing rubbish outside and untidiness inside and out. However, much of the rubbish did not belong to the tenant. I consider an order for 50 per cent is appropriate.
Some of the photographs, particularly of mouldy window frames, prove that further cleaning prior to move-out was required.
On reflection, I consider the tenant should be ordered to reimburse the landlord for 25 percent of the cleaning.
The lawns needed mowing on exit. The full amount of the lawn mowing invoice is to be awarded.
The tenant did not return the keys until several days after the tenancy ended. The landlord replaced the locks. The failure to return the keys may have been due to the parties falling into dispute and poor communication. Nonetheless, it was the tenant’s responsibility to return the keys and she should have seen to it.
The Tribunal orders the tenant to reimburse the tenant for the cost of the locksmith’s services.

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.
The landlord claimed the tenant damaged a wall during the tenancy. The damage was noted on 2 December 2023, a month after the tenancy ended.
The tenant could not identify the location of the alleged damage and denies causing the damage.
The tenant was in the premises for 10 years and she and the evidence suggests she and her family took good care of the house. This one isolated item of damage is all that is alleged for the whole of the tenancy.
I am not satisfied the tenant damaged a wall beyond fair wear and tear during the tenancy.
This claim is dismissed. Result
The Tribunal orders the landlord to pay the tenant $10,575.09. This figure is arrived at once the Tribunal’s monetary orders for each party are calculated.
The bond is to be returned to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4729151 — State of repair at 903 East Coast Road, Northcross, Auckland 0632

Tenancy Tribunal case 4729151 — State of repair at 903 East Coast Road, Northcross, Auckland 0632

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Did the tenant fail to meet her move-out duties or damage the premises?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Did the tenant fail to meet her move-out duties or damage the premises?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management