What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4731578?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 (6416463-006) to Salehabanu

How much money was awarded in case 4731578?

Compensation: delay in fixing front…: $345.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: water flowing across e…: $610.00 awarded to tenant; Painting Of Wall: $300.00 awarded to landlord; To Vanity: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $104.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4731578?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4731578?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10423526-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4731578?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 (6416463-006) to Salehabanu

How much money was awarded in case 4731578?

Compensation: delay in fixing front…: $345.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: water flowing across e…: $610.00 awarded to tenant; Painting Of Wall: $300.00 awarded to landlord; To Vanity: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $104.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4731578?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4731578?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10423526-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 517 Richardson Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4731578 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4731578 — net $298.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$104.00		Water rates
Repairs: to vanity	$253.00		Repairs: to vanity
Repairs: painting of wall	$300.00		Repairs: painting of wall
Compensation: delay in fixing front door lock		$345.00	delay in fixing front door lock
Compensation: water flowing across external door		$610.00	water flowing across external door
Total award	$657.00	$955.00
Net award		$298.00
Bond		$2,760.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$298.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4731578 — net $298.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$104.00		Water rates
Repairs: to vanity	$253.00		Repairs: to vanity
Repairs: painting of wall	$300.00		Repairs: painting of wall
Compensation: delay in fixing front door lock		$345.00	delay in fixing front door lock
Compensation: water flowing across external door		$610.00	water flowing across external door
Total award	$657.00	$955.00
Net award		$298.00
Bond		$2,760.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$298.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 (6416463-006) to Salehabanu Mohmed and Ashif Gulamhusen Shaikh immediately.
Topline Rentals Limited T/A Harcourts Topline Rentals Ltd as Agent for Sweety Mody must pay Salehabanu Mohmed and Ashif Gulamhusen Shaikh $298.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Mody represented the landlord.
These claims relate to the tenancy of a house situated in Mount Roskill, Auckland.
The tenancy was for a period of two years and four months, beginning on 30 June 2021 and ending on 5 October 2023.
On 6 November 2023 the tenants filed a claim in the Tribunal. In their application the tenants sought refund of the bond but their application was a pre-emptive defence to the landlord’s intended claims. The tenants also signalled that they had experienced issues during the tenancy which would later be outlined for the Tribunal.
On 27 November 2023 the landlord filed an application seeking compensation for water rates to the end of the tenancy ($104.00), repair of a vanity ($253.00) and repainting a wall ($517.50).
At the first hearing of this matter on 20 March 2024 I recorded that the tenants’ claims had been updated to include orders for (unquantified) compensation on the basis of the following breaches by the landlord: a. The gas on the stove was turned up too high; b. There was water leakage across the entrance door; c. The home was not healthy homes compliant (in regards to both the insulation and draught stopping standards); and d. The front door lock broke and was not fixed promptly.
The first hearing was adjourned to allow the parties to file additional evidence. This matter then proceeded before me on 5 June 2024. Onus and evidence
Each party bears the onus of proving their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).
For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence presented and the submissions made at the hearing but the parties should be assured that I have carefully considered all of the evidence and submissions in reaching my decision. Landlord’s claim

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenants agreed that water rates were due and owing in the amount claimed by the landlord. I therefore order by consent that the tenants pay to the landlord water rates in the amount of $104.00.

Are the tenants 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Vanity
The landlord explained that they had agreed that the tenants could install a different vanity (as the vanity had been damaged during the tenancy) as long as they did so by engaging a professional installer.
Mr Shaikh said that he and a friend who is a plumber installed the vanity themselves and that they used the exact same fittings to do so. The tenants provided photos showing that the original fittings fitted into the new vanity.
The landlord said that the new vanity was larger and was very close to the toilet but they took no issue with this. However they explained that as the tenants had not been able to produce evidence that it had been installed by a professional as agreed, there was no warranty for the work done and they could not be certain that it had been installed correctly.
The landlord engaged a plumber to check the work and to rectify (if necessary) and certify the work done.
The landlord explained that they engaged a plumber who told them that while the fittings may have looked the same, in fact different fittings were required.
The landlord produced a photo of the original vanity, the vanity installed by the tenants, and an invoice from Plumbing Guru in the amount of $253.00 which states “Replace Vanity plug and waste and fitted with a vented trap. Reseal around vanity top”. The landlord also produced photos of the finished work.
The landlord’s claim is proved. The tenants were not able to provide evidence that the vanity had been professionally installed and so I consider that the landlord was entitled to engage a professional to check the work and remedy any issues. I accept the professional opinion of the plumber engaged by the landlord. Wall
The landlord said that there is a purple feature wall in the kitchen (which continues above the tiling) and that at the end of the tenancy there were large white/faded marks across two of the walls. The tenants confirmed at the hearing that this had been caused by his son spraying a product onto the walls while cleaning.
The landlord produced photos showing the marks which are consistent with a product being sprayed on the walls. The landlord said that they had to have the wall repainted, including the adjoining walls of the same colour, to ensure a colour match.
The landlord produced a quote in the amount of $517.00 from Prime Services New Zealand. The landlord said that they had now had the work done and had in fact been invoiced over $700.00 but only sought the amount of the quote from the tenants as originally claimed.
The tenants said that they were not given the opportunity to repaint themselves and if they could have done so then they would have done so at a fraction of the cost.
The landlord said that they were never told about the problem with the wall and if they had been told before the end of the tenancy they would have given the tenants an opportunity to rectify it, but that they needed to get the property ready for new tenants.
I understand the tenants’ disappointment that the landlord has now completed the work but there is no obligation on landlords to delay repairs once the tenancy has ended or to allow tenants to re-enter to do repairs. The landlord was entitled to arrange the painting themselves.
I must however take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord explained that the walls were newly painted at the start of the tenancy but that was now nearly three years ago. It is common for landlords to repaint regularly in between tenants, possibly every five to ten years. In this case the walls are in the kitchen and from the photos provided to me are subject to considerable wear and tear. The landlord now has newly painted walls in the kitchen. I consider that in all the circumstances the tenants should be liable for slightly over two-thirds of the landlord’s quote, being $300.00. The tenants’ claims
The tenants claim that the landlords breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA.
Section 45 provides that the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises. Gas
The tenants said that the gas on the stove was turned up far too high and could not be turned down, causing their pots to go black.
The landlord said that as soon as they were told about the issue they engaged a professional to investigate the issue. The landlord produced an invoice from Endeavour Drainage and Plumbing dated 7 July 2021 to repair the stove. They explained that the stove was then replaced in December 2021.
While the tenants provided a photo of the pot that had been blackened and flames coming about half way up the pot, the tenants gave no information as to how far the gas was turned up and was unable to produce a video which I am told included this information.
I am therefore unable to find any breach by the landlord, and note that as far as the landlord accepts there was an issue it was remedied fairly promptly.
The tenants’ claim in respect of the gas stove is dismissed. Water leakage on front balcony
The tenants explained that when it rained water would pour down across the entranceway door so that it was difficult to enter and exit the house without getting wet.
The tenants produced a copy of an email that they sent to the landlord on 21 July 2021 stating “Hi Topline Rental Pease find the enclosed video of rain water leaking in front balcony”.
The landlord sent a reply the following day stating “Hi Ashif, Thank you for sending the video with rain water issue. I checked with the landlord and according to him this is not the leak issue. If there is heavy rainfall then water will start falling of the roof which is all normal”.
The tenants explained that no action was then taken by the landlord and the problem continued.
The tenants played a video at the hearing which showed considerable water running down the area right across the entire door. The date of the video was 21 March 2022.
The tenants produced a further email send to the landlord on 21 March 2022 at
41am stating: “Please see the video the rain water no right in my door steps and it is very difficult to go out and come in .. Would request you to look in this and fix it ASAP”
The landlord responded at 9.44am stating “This rain is very heavy rain and something we cannot control. Gutters have been cleaned. Most of the gutters in town are overflowing”.
At the hearing the tenants said that the problem continued throughout the tenancy and that they were disappointed that the landlord took no action.
The landlord explained at the hearing that there were no issues with the gutters and produced an invoice dated 4 June 2021 (just prior to the tenancy) showing that the gutters had been cleaned.
Having reviewed all of the evidence I consider that the landlord has breached their obligations to maintain and repair the property in this respect. It is not normal for gutters to overflow to the extent shown in the video. If it was raining heavily the tenants had to walk through a minor waterfall when entering or exiting the house. The landlord simply dismissed the tenants’ concerns and did not send anyone to look at the issue. I note further that the gutters were not cleared at all during the tenancy.
I note in addition that the Healthy Homes Report produced relied on by the landlord notes that, while it confirms the property has passed the Healthy Homes standards for drainage, in response to the question “Gutters are present to carry away water from all parts of the roof and connected to downpipe and both are of sufficient size to not overflow” the report writer has responded “No”.
In my view the landlord should have investigated the issue and taken appropriate steps to rectify it. The tenants should have been able to come and go out of their door without getting wet due to leaks right across the door in heavy rain. I accept that the issue would have been intermittent, happening only in heavy rain, but this would have still caused inconvenience for the tenants.
The tenancy was for a period of 122 weeks. If this problem had been happening regularly then I would have considered a rent reduction of $10 per week over the entire tenancy to be appropriate to compensate the tenants for that inconvenience ($1,220). However as the problem was intermittent I have halved that amount and order payment to the tenants of $610.00. Front door lock
The tenants explained that the front door lock broke. The tenants played a video which shows an old style door lock where the latch has become stuck so that it does not extend to engage with the door frame to secure the door. The tenants said that the lock was not fixed for one week and so they did not feel like they could leave the house and had to stay alert at night as anybody could enter.
The tenants produced correspondence between them and the landlord between 6 August 2021 when they first contacted the landlord. The landlord notified the landlord on Friday 6 August 2021 at 9.18am but the landlord did not reply until Monday morning and then said that they would send a handyman.
The tenants said that the handyman who was engaged initially who did not fix the lock (and in fact damaged the door) and that locksmith was finally engaged on and repaired the lock on Friday 13 August 2021 (as confirmed by correspondence with the landlord).
The landlord said that the handyman that they engaged advised that they had fixed the lock to the point where the door would close and lock but if pushed hard the door would still open. They said that they then engaged a locksmith but as the they were first notified of the issue on a Friday and taking into account the weekend the issue was fixed promptly.
I consider that the landlord should have taken immediate steps to secure the front door as soon as they were advised of the issue by the tenants, even if this meant engaging an emergency locksmith over the weekend. Tenants are entitled to working locks so that they are secure in their home and so that they are able to leave their home in the knowledge that their belongings are secure. The tenants’ contents insurance may well have been compromised if there had been a burglary.
I consider that the tenants are entitled to compensation for the period during which the lock was broken. The issue caused them stress and inconvenience. In my view appropriate compensation is half a week of rent, being $345.00. Healthy Home Standards
The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards insulation and draught stopping standards.
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.
The insulation standard requires that residential premises be insulated to certain minimum standards (unless exemptions apply).
The tenants produced a report from a man named David dated 23 May 2023 which he says that the landlord obtained during the tenancy. This is a fairly brief report which, although at first glance appears to note issues with the tenancy, in fact simply identifies possible issues that might occur in any tenancy and then sets out suggested general actions that might be taken.
The landlord explained that they had engaged David because he was offering a free assessment but that the report was of no real value and the company he represented is no longer in business.
The landlord said that the compliance date for the property was not until 1 July 2025 but that the property was compliant in any event. The landlord said that no compliance work had been done during the tenancy and they obtained a report on 14 October 2023 which confirmed that the property was compliant. A copy of this report was produced to the Tribunal.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
This tenancy began on 30 June 2021. The compliance date for the tenancy was therefore 1 July 2025. There can therefore have been no breach by the landlord but I note that the property now seems to comply and likely complied right throughout the tenancy.
The tenants claim for breach of Healthy Homes Standards is dismissed. Further claims
At the hearing the tenants said that they wished to pursue a claim in respect of the extractor fan in the bathroom that broke but was not fixed for a period of 15 days (there being no opening window). However this claim was not listed as claim at the first hearing and the landlord was no prepared to deal with it at the resumed hearing. The tenants did not take any issue with claims as summarised in the order dated 20 March 2024.
This claim has not been determined and so the tenants are able to file a fresh claim for this issue if they wish to do so. At the hearing I suggested that 15 days to repair an extractor fan is likely to be found reasonable, but it is not possible to make any finding without reviewing all of the evidence. I accept that another adjudicator may take a different view. Filing fees and name suppression
Both parties have had some success. I have therefore not reimbursed the filing fees. I do not consider that either party is entitled to an order for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4731578 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 517 Richardson Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4731578 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 517 Richardson Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 water rates?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions