What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4776637?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Robin William Smith and Yangsoon Cho at 93 Sylvan Avenue,

How much money was awarded in case 4776637?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4776637?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4776637?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10165517-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4776637?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Robin William Smith and Yangsoon Cho at 93 Sylvan Avenue,

How much money was awarded in case 4776637?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4776637?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4776637?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10165517-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

93 Sylvan Avenue, Northcote, Auckland 0627 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4776637 — Rent arrears

Order

The tenancy of Robin William Smith and Yangsoon Cho at 93 Sylvan Avenue, Northcote, Auckland 0627 is terminated, and possession is granted to Sawsan Rizkallah, at 9:00am on 24 May 2024, or at an earlier date if notified by the tenants to the landlords prior.
Robin William Smith and Yangsoon Cho must pay Sawsan Rizkallah $100.00 immediately, being rent arrears.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the tenants and landlords.
Both landlords appeared at the hearing today. Neither tenant was in attendance, but the tenants were represented by their son, Mr Smith. I note because the claims are over $6,000.00, then the parties are entitled to have a representative attend the hearing for them, so there are no issues with Mr Smith attending for the tenants.

BACKGROUND

The Tribunal has not been provided with a full copy of the tenancy agreement, however, I understand that the tenancy commenced in April 2022, although both applications filed with the Tribunal record a different day of that month. Nothing will turn on that difference.
Based on the information on file, and after hearing from the landlords and Mr Smith at the hearing, it is clear that things have not gone well between the landlords and tenants, the relationship has severely deteriorated. I understand that the tenants are more senior in years, and have some health issues which may have contributed to things. The landlord lives directly next door to the tenancy, and that proximity could also be a factor making things more challenging.
I also note that various disputes arose over the tenancy, and that has seen a number of 14 day notices to remedy being issued by the landlord. The tenants have issued a trespass notice against the landlord.
The landlords have issued a termination notice to the tenants on the grounds of work being needed to the tenancy, and also family members moving into the premises. The validity of these notices is challenged by the tenants.
In any event, both parties have now applied to the Tribunal, and I will traverse the claims shortly in this decision.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Before I address the specific claims, I will summarise some general legal principles that apply.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Compensation for pets

Mr Smith states that when the tenants moved in they had 3 dogs, but they had puppies (twice), and at the end of the tenancy the tenants also had 26 birds. The puppies were sold and the birds were given away. Mr Smith states that the tenancy agreement did mention 3 dogs.
Mr Smith states that the landlords asked the tenants to get rid of the animals, which the tenants did, although they currently still have 4 dogs. The tenants seek compensation for needing to remove these animals.
Mr Smith states the loss for the birds was $2,600.00 which was the total cost for the purchase of the birds, but accepted there were no receipts presented for this. Mr Smith accepted there was no loss for dogs that were sold.
In response, the landlords stated there was permission for 3 dogs only on the premises but the number increased over the course of the tenancy to there being 10 dogs present. This resulted in a bad smell from the animals. The landlord considers that the tenants were operating a commercial business around the sale of the animals.
In conclusion, Mr Smith states that he believes there was a conversation around having birds (the landlord disputes that). Analysis
For any claim for compensation to succeed, there must be a loss incurred by the applicant (the tenant in this case), and that loss must be caused by a breach of some legal obligation held by the respondent (the landlord).
In relation to the dogs, Mr Smith has acknowledged that the dogs have been sold, and to that extent, there would be no loss that could be compensated for.
The birds however, are more difficult. Mr Smith acknowledge that he does not have any receipts that could support the claim, and to that extent it is difficult to work out what the tenants actual loss in relation to the birds would be.
But there is a further problem for the tenants, because I am not able to see a breach on the part of the landlord. If the landlord considered that the birds were a breach of some obligation that the tenant held, there would be no problem with the landlord raising that with the tenants, even requesting that the birds be removed. That would then mean the tenants will need to consider that request, and they could either decide that they would remove the birds, or they could tell the landlord ‘no’. And if the tenants refused to remove the birds, then the landlord would be able to apply to the Tenancy Tribunal for orders concerning the birds - that would be the normal process that applies.
But overall, I cannot see that the landlord has breached any obligation toward the tenant, that could have resulted in a loss in relation to the birds, meaning this claim has not been established. Compensation for not being able to use the deck.
Mr Smith stated the decks were rotten and this was pre-existing the tenancy. Mr Smith states that the deck is unsafe. Reference was made to photographs presented at the hearing.
The landlord disputes that the deck is unsafe, stating that if the deck was in fact unsafe, why did the tenants take the tenancy? Further, the landlord considers that if there has been any degradation on the deck, this will arise from the tenants having planters on the deck. The landlord states that two builders have assessed the deck and confirmed that it is safe, but accept that the decking timber is dirty. The landlord states that the tenants sent a third builder away and would not allow the builder to do any necessary maintenance work on the decking timber. The landlord states that a builder attended with timber to replace some of the ‘wood’ but the tenant would not allow any work to be completed. The landlord further considers that the tenant’s dogs have caused damage to the deck.
In relation to the contractors not being allowed on site, Mr Smith questioned if the landlord had provided adequate notice. Mr Smith clarified that there are no concerns around the structure of the deck just the wooden decking. Analysis
Again the onus sits with the applicant (the tenant here) to prove the claim. The tenants must prove a loss from a breach on the part of the landlord. In this case the tenants must prove that the deck is not useable, and I find the tenants have not done that.
The photographs do not in my view clearly show an unsafe or unusable deck. I do accept that some maintenance work would be needed to the decking, and in fact the landlord tried to get a builder to do that work. The evidence is that the tenant was not happy with what the builder was doing, so put a stop to that work.
I find the tenants have not proven this claim for two reasons: a. I am not persuaded there is sufficient evidence to show that overall the deck was unusable. While it does look like maintenance was needed to the deck, that is not the same as saying that the deck could not be used. b. I accept the landlord’s evidence that a worker was arranged to do maintenance on the deck but the tenant sent the worker away. It would not then be reasonable to order that compensation for the state of the deck be paid.
This claim has not been established. Declaration as to liability for the power board replacement
The tenant seeks a declaration about liability for the power board replacement. This is also the subject of a claim from the landlord, it is more appropriate that I deal with this matter in the landlord’s claim further below. Failure to maintain
Mr Smith submits that the photographs show that any work needed has been undertaken poorly. Reference is made to a swollen door in the bathroom, cracks in the walls and chimney (which would not be structurally sound), and that there is no cap on the top of the chimney which would allow water into the house. Mr Smith states that the carpet is rotten. Mr Smith states there is widespread rot and draughts in the house. Mr Smith states that the premises are not healthy or liveable.
Mr Smith states that his parents are in poor health, and he believes that the state of the house is contributing to this.
In response, the landlords state the chimney is not used, and it is blocked off (there is nothing inside the house). The landlord states the house has a heat pump installed. The landlord considers that the tenants are not reasonably allowing contractors into the house. The landlord particularly noted a window repair that could not be completed because the tenant would not allow entry for that.
Mr Smith states that maintenance work was slow to be completed, but he accepted that the tenants have not made this “easy”. Reference was also made to a fence that had been blown down with Cyclone Gabriel that took three months to be repaired.
The landlord states that in relation to the fence, there was a delay but that was because of delays with the insurer. Analysis
There is no doubt that the obligation to maintain the premises is on the landlord.
This claim has been difficult because I accept that some maintenance work is needed to the premises, but I also consider there is strong evidence that the tenants have not been helpful with allowing entry for work to be done. In those circumstances, it would not be reasonable to make any punitive orders against the landlord for failing to maintain.
I am also mindful that the tenants would have further difficulty here, in that I have not received any evidence from a suitably qualified person who has assessed the house, such as a plumber or electrician, supporting that work needed to be done.
This claim has not been established. Work orders
The tenants sought various work orders from the Tribunal. In short, a work order is an order that the Tribunal makes that requires the landlord to undertake specific work, such as maintenance. However, after the work order claims were heard at the hearing today, the parties agreed that the tenancy should end by consent, in 50 days at the latest. Given that, Mr Smith acknowledged that making the work orders would not be necessary, given the tenancy was not continuing.
For completeness however, I will record the submissions of the parties on these work orders for the record, but I will not make any further orders in relation to this claim. Decks
The tenants consider that the decking timber should be replaced.
The landlord agrees that some work should be undertaken on the deck. The landlord notes that they had arranged a builder to do this work, but the builder was sent away by the tenants.
Mr Smith states that the builder was sent away because there was improper notice and consent from only one of the tenants. Mr Smith states that his father had not been involved with the consent process, hence sending the builder away, but Mr Smith accepts that consent from one tenant would be all that is needed. Chimney
Mr Smith states that while it is agreed that the chimney has been blocked off inside the house, it has not been capped, and further there is cracking on the block work on the chimney. Mr Smith considers water ingress from the chimney is causing rotting of the carpets.
The landlord considers that the cracking is from the cyclone and is cosmetic only, otherwise the chimney is intact.
Mr Smith states that Ray White sales photographs before the tenancy commenced show the chimney to be on a lean.d Kitchen window
The tenant states that the landlord attempted a repair of the kitchen window but that was with duct tape, it is leaking, and causing mould in the kitchen.
The landlord states that because of the cyclone the glass has moved and was siliconed by the insurance assessor, and the landlord disputes that this window is leaking. Bathroom door
Mr Smith states that because the bathroom is a wet area, and it appears to have been moisture damaged, the door is swollen and needs replacement. Repairs were undertaken using masking tape. Mr Smith states that the tenants were required to ‘sign off’ on these during inspections otherwise the ywould have to get rid of the dogs.
The landlord states that bottom of the door was reported as being smelly, but the landlord states the door is closing, and one tenant said that the door is “ok” and “good”.
Mr Smith states that he understands any smell is from mould on the door. Towel Rail
The tenants consider the towel rail needs replacement because it is broken and the wires are exposed.
The landlord states that the towel rail has been disconnected by the electrician, at the request of the tenant, who said they ‘don’t want it’.
Mr Smith states that he is not privy to the discussions between the tenant and electrician. Smoke alarm
The tenant states that the smoke alarm went off and because of that the fire brigade was called, and it was found to be faulty, and the fire officers took the smoke alarm down. The tenant’s position is that the landlord should be maintaining the smoke alarm.
The landlord states that the smoke alarm has been replaced with a long-life unit which Mr Smith acknowledged at the time. This was about 2-3 months ago. The landlord says there are 5 smoke alarms on the premises. Quiet enjoyment and privacy
Mr Smith states that when a contractor was attending the house, the landlord asked the tenant whether they had paid the water bill, which is a privacy breach as that was asked in front of a contractor.
The landlords’ dispute raising this in front of the contractor, certainly they indicated they had no recollection of that. Analysis
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.” The Act further confirms that contravention of subsection 2 in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is declared to be an unlawful act.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
In relation to this claim, I find there are two reasons I cannot make any order. a. There is insufficient evidence before me in which I could be satisfied to the balance of probabilities that the landlord did raise the water bill in front of the contractor. As noted the tenants did not attend the hearing and give evidence of this. b. Furthermore, even if the landlord did raise that bill in front of the contractor, while it might have been bad judgement, I do not consider it would have been unlawful, and it would be unlikely to have reached the threshold of harassment of the tenant.
This claim has not been established. Validity of the termination notice.
The tenants seek a declaration as to whether a termination notice is valid. Because of the agreement of the parties to terminate the tenancy, I consider this claim to be moot. The Tribunal cannot adjudicate moot issues. Unlawful entry and harassment
Mr Smith states there are numerous instances where the landlord has turned up at the premises, often after the tenants not replying to communications. Mr Smith states that there have been some 14 contractors who have come to the premises, and the number is excessive.
Mr Smith states that he knows of one instance where the landlord has come into the house. At times notices would be placed in the tenant’s letter box, and the tenants had not received these notices before the landlord came into the premises.
Mr Smith also stated that the landlords would watch the premises from their next-door house, or take photographs from their property.
In response, the landlord stated that there would be communications with the tenants around entry to the premises, and reference was made to screenshots of text message conversations showing that. The landlord’s position is that the tenants have agreed to the attendances. Analysis
Section 48 of the RTA sets out the requirements around a landlord’s right to enter the premises. This requires the landlord to give 24 hours’ notice to enter the premises when undertaking maintenance. But that provision also confirms that the landlord can lawfully enter the premises at any time, with the consent of the tenant given freely at or immediately before the entry (in that case notice is not necessary).
The landlord does not need to obtain consent, or give notice to enter the land comprising the tenancy. Section 48 of the RTA relates to the landlord’s right of entry, with subsection 1 confirming that the landlord “shall not enter the premises” other than that with the consent of the tenant given at the time, or if the Act would otherwise allow it, such as following notice.
If the landlord fails to comply with the entry requirements, then they commit an unlawful act, and therefore exemplary damages could be ordered. But the problem for the tenants is subsection 7 which holds that “In this section premises does not include land or facilities”.
The effect of that subsection 7 provision, is to exclude any requirement for the landlord to obtain consent, or give notice, to enter land or facilities that otherwise comprise the premises.
I am not persuaded and this case that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the landlords have unlawfully entered the premises.
Again, I have not heard any evidence from the tenants, they were not at the hearing, nor has any evidence been filed by the tenants such as evidence by way of affidavits etc.
One of the issues raised by Mr Smith, was that notices to enter the premises had been put in the letterbox, and not received by the tenants within the required time frame. While I have not received any evidence from the tenants on that point, even if Mr Smith was right, there is no breach. The tenancy agreement records that the address for service of the tenants is 93 Sylvan Avenue – the tenancy address – so notice could have been put into the letterbox lawfully. The 24 hours notice does not start from the time the notice is received, or viewed by the tenants, but when the notice is served. There are specific provisions in the RTA for determining when service has been made, but there is insufficient evidence before me in order to determine if the notice periods have been inadequate. The tenants must prove the notice period was inadequate to succeed in this claim.
I am also minded, that there is some evidence that consent for entry has been given by one of the co-tenants, and the other co-tenant has subsequently refused entry. As I noted to Mr Smith at the hearing today, all the landlord needed to receive was consent from one tenant to enter the premises, and then the landlord and the agent (the contractor) can lawfully enter the premises.
I conclude there is insufficient evidence to establish an unlawful entry claim. Healthy Homes Standards
The tenant’s position is that the landlord has breached their obligations under the Healthy Homes Standards, around draughts and moisture / drainage as discussed above. Mr Smith states that this has caused mould and a musty smell in the house. Mr Smith also refers to photographs showing issues with the outside of the premises. Mr Smith believes the smell is from rotting carpet.
In response, the landlords state the house is sunny and there are many windows for ventilation. The landlord disputes that there is any smell arising from rotten timber or mould, but believes the smell is from the animals, and the smell is “very awful” Analysis
The tenants have claimed that the landlord has breached their obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provided for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the HHS. A breach of this obligation is deemed to be an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be ordered. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered as set out in Schedule 1A to the RTA, is $7,200.00.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy, but all private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, so the HHS will apply for this tenancy. Draught Stopping Standard
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 HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances. Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard
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.
Again the HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
In this case the best evidence around compliance with the HHS is that provided from an independent HHS assessor in a 2022 report (the Oncore assessment). The independent assessor did not identify any issues with draughts in the house, or with moisture ingress and drainage. Again I have not received any other professional assessment showing excessive gaps or water ingress or drainage issues. I appreciate that Mr Smith considers that the chimney is leaking, but as the representative of the tenants, his evidence on that cannot carry the day.
This claim has not been established.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Possession order

The landlord seeks a possession order, on the basis that the landlord says the tenant has breached various 14-day notices issued to the tenants. At the hearing I heard extensive evidence and arguments from the landlords around this.
The landlord states that possession should return to the landlord because the tenant is breaching the tenancy agreement because the tenants are breeding animals at the property so operating a commercial business from the premises. The landlord accepts that the tenants have been reducing the number of animals on site, and they are not sure what animals they now have.
The landlord also says that the tenancy should end because of difficulties with communication with the tenant, and because of complaints about the necessity for work. Various examples were given, such as unnecessary plumbing work, or complaining of water leaks but the plumber being unable to find any water ingress from the house, but otherwise there being a leak with the tenant’s washing machine. The landlord considers that the tenants are dissatisfied with work that has been done, or complaints to outside agencies such as Worksafe in relation to a complaint with the power board.
The landlord states that at an inspection of 4 February 2024 there were four dogs on the premises.
Mr Smith agrees that there were four dogs were present at the time of the inspection in February and that the tenants are trying to sell the final dog. The tenant also states that the tenancy agreement does not limit the number of dogs on the tenancy. At this point, the landlord produced the final page of the tenancy agreement which records “has 3 dogs”. In response, Mr Smith states the agreement does not limit the dogs to 3 only that they ‘have’ three dogs at that time.
Mr Smith maintains that there is a water leak that he believes is arising from the chimney. Mr Smith states that it was the meter reading company, Wells, who advised the meter needs to be replaced because it has asbestos.
However, following further discussion the parties agreed that the Tribunal should issue a consent order, terminating the tenancy in 50 days time – at the latest – but that it should end earlier if the tenants find somewhere to move to sooner. By my calculation 50 days is 24 May 2024. By consent of the parties, or to put that another way, by agreement of the parties, the Tribunal orders that the tenancy will terminate on 24 May 2024, but may terminate on an earlier date if the tenants find premises to move to sooner, that date will need to be notified to the landlord if an earlier date is to apply. Compensation for power board
The landlord states that the tenants had complained about the power board, the landlord had the power board replaced so far costing several thousands of dollars, and further work is needed. The landlord seeks to have that cost paid by the tenant.
The tenant’s position is that it was Well’s (the meter reading company) that wanted the board replaced, and all arrangements for the replacement were made by the landlord.
The landlords view is that it was the tenants who ‘nagged’ for this work to be completed. Analysis
The responsibility to maintain the tenancy is solely the responsibility of the landlord.
In my assessment, the power board was replaced because of the age and condition of the existing power board, which would be a maintenance issue. It may well be that the tenantss requested that the meter board be changed, but that of itself does not show that the tenants should pay for that work. The RTA requires the tenants notify the landlord if they believe maintenance is needed, it is very common that tenants do request maintenance or other work to tenancy premises from the landlord. Just as I have discussed above, that does not mean that the landlord must do that work, the landlord could decide that they will undertake the work, or they could also say ‘no’. Then if the tenant wanted to dispute the matter further the tenant could file a claim with the Tenancy Tribunal, and the Tribunal could make any necessary orders as to whether the maintenance was needed one way or the other.
But as the evidence stands, this work falls within the category of maintenance, and I cannot see that the tenants will be liable for paying for it. Compensation for deck
The landlord’s position is that the tenants should pay for the work needed to the deck, because some of the damage is from the tenants, and further the tenant interfered with the builder who attended the premises to replace the decking.
Mr Smith submits that the damage to the decking was pre-existing based on the photographs. The damage has got worse over the tenancy, but it has not been damaged by the tenants. Analysis
With any claim for compensation, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must firstly prove the damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
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 the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
On the evidence available, I find the landlords have not proven that the work needed to the deck is beyond maintenance to address fair wear and tear.
However even if I was wrong in that assessment, I am not persuaded that any damage to the deck would be classed as careless or intentional damage. Certainly, there is no suggestion that the tenants deliberately set about to damage the deck, which would be intentional damage. But equally, I cannot see any grounds to argue that the tenants have been careless. Even if the tenants did have planters on the deck, or dogs on the deck, the exterior deck should be reasonably robust and able to withstand that type of usage. It would not be careless to have planters on a deck or pets.
This claim has not been established. Compensation for dog smell
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
As I explained to the landlord at the hearing, this claim in relation to dog odours would be premature. The tenants are required to return the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and it can be accepted that would extend to any unreasonable degree of unpleasant odour in the tenancy.
When the tenancy comes to an end, which will be shortly, no doubt if the landlord has any concerns around the smell inside the tenancy they will discuss that with the tenant then. If following that discussion the parties cannot agree, there remains at that time the option for the landlord to pursue a further claim to the Tribunal, but that will be a matter for another day. Rent arrears
The landlord’s position is that the rent is behind $100.00, and the landlord seeks that to be paid.
The landlord has provided a copy of the rent ledger, and I am satisfied that shows the rent is $100 behind, and to be fair Mr Smith accepted that was the case too. For one rent payment due in February the tenants needed to have paid $1,600.00, but the payment was $1,500.00. I order those arrears to be paid.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4776637 — Rent arrears at 93 Sylvan Avenue, Northcote, Auckland 0627

Tenancy Tribunal case 4776637 — Rent arrears at 93 Sylvan Avenue, Northcote, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions