What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4778618?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (3442941-011) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 4778618?

Failure To Maintain Flooring: $1,971.43 awarded to tenant; Non-Compliant Insulation: $1,260.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $414.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $36.83 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $433.75 awarded to landlord; Rent: $3,730.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Gully Trap Lid: $13.97 awarded to landlord; Unsafe Electrical Wiring: $630.00 awarded to tenant; Water Charges To End Of Tenancy: $1,587.31 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4778618?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4778618?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10694579-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4778618?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (3442941-011) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 4778618?

Failure To Maintain Flooring: $1,971.43 awarded to tenant; Non-Compliant Insulation: $1,260.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $414.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $36.83 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $433.75 awarded to landlord; Rent: $3,730.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Gully Trap Lid: $13.97 awarded to landlord; Unsafe Electrical Wiring: $630.00 awarded to tenant; Water Charges To End Of Tenancy: $1,587.31 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4778618?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4778618?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10694579-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 24 Trentham Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4778618 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4778618 — net $2,354.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 21 July 2024	$3,730.00		Rent to 21 July 2024
Water charges to end of tenancy	$1,587.31		Water charges to end of tenancy
Lock/key replacement	$414.00		Lock/key replacement
Repairs to doors	$36.83		Repairs to doors
Replace gully trap lid	$13.97		Replace gully trap lid
Repairs to walls – paint cost	$433.75		Repairs to walls – paint cost
Failure to maintain flooring		$1,971.43	Failure to maintain flooring
Unsafe electrical wiring		$630.00	Unsafe electrical wiring
Non-compliant insulation		$1,260.00	Non-compliant insulation
Total award	$6,215.86	$3,861.43
Net award	$2,354.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,354.43

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4778618 — net $2,354.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 21 July 2024	$3,730.00		Rent to 21 July 2024
Water charges to end of tenancy	$1,587.31		Water charges to end of tenancy
Lock/key replacement	$414.00		Lock/key replacement
Repairs to doors	$36.83		Repairs to doors
Replace gully trap lid	$13.97		Replace gully trap lid
Repairs to walls – paint cost	$433.75		Repairs to walls – paint cost
Failure to maintain flooring		$1,971.43	Failure to maintain flooring
Unsafe electrical wiring		$630.00	Unsafe electrical wiring
Non-compliant insulation		$1,260.00	Non-compliant insulation
Total award	$6,215.86	$3,861.43
Net award	$2,354.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,354.43

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (3442941-011) immediately apportioned as follows: Pro Edge Property Management Limited As Agent For Sunil Kumar: $2,354.43 Amy Klootwyk: $45.57

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 28 May and 8 August 2024.
The procedural history is as follows: • On 10 January 2024 the landlord applied for termination of the tenancy for rent arrears. There was also a claim for outgoings, repairs and refund of the bond. • The application for termination was dismissed on 27 February 2024 and the landlord’s remaining claims were adjourned. • On 29 March 2024 the tenant applied for compensation for breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. • The Tribunal made a work order on 28 May 2024, requiring repairs to the floor in the kitchen/laundry area and to the kitchen sink. The work order also required the landlord to make safe any accessible electrical wiring under the sink. • On 29 May 2024 the landlord applied for termination for rent arrears and outgoings.
The tenant vacated the property on 21 July 2024. Rent and Water
The tenant did not dispute the rent and water charges claimed by the landlord.
The weekly rent was $630.00. The rent arrears to 21 July 2024 are $3,730.00. The water charges to 14 May 2024 are $1,587.31. The landlord provided rent records and water invoices which establish the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Property Damage
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.
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 4 weeks' rent. The insurance excess was $1,000.00.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to 4 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. Analysis
The landlord relied on a quote from Scope Works NZ Ltd at the 28 May 2024 hearing. The Tribunal requested that the landlord further particularise the amounts claimed against the tenant, as many of the items in the quote seemed to relate to damage the tenant did not cause (for example, damage to the laundry floor).
At the August 2024 hearing, the landlord produced a bundle of invoices and a handwritten list of claims. I have assumed that this superseded the earlier quote. In the handwritten list, the landlord claimed: • Replacement locks ($414.00) • Replacement window glass in an external door ($300.00) • Missing internal door and cupboard handles ($36.83) • Missing gully trap cover ($13.97) • Missing smoke alarms ($38.75) • Paint ($433.75).
The tenant accepted that they had not returned the keys and did not dispute the lock replacement costs.
The tenant said the window glass was damaged in a storm when a tree fell down. The tenant emailed a photograph of a fallen tree on the deck close to the ranch-slider door on 13 February 2022. However, the same door appears undamaged in the 12 August 2022 inspection report (104 General 6). The glass looks to be broken in the 16 May 2024 inspection report (006 Exterior 6) although the report itself makes no mention of the damage. There are no reports from 2023. The broken glass is first mentioned in the 22 July 2024 inspection report and is also shown in a healthy homes assessment report from June 2024. I consider there is real doubt about how this damage occurred and whether it was the result of Storm Gabrielle in 2023. I decline to award the cost of replacement.
The tenant said the door handle to their children’s bedroom came off with use, and another bedroom handle was loose. The inspection report on 16 May 2024 identified a missing door handle in bedroom 1, a loose door handle in bedroom 3, a loose towel rail, and a broken door handle in the laundry. It is difficult to put all of this down to a lack of maintenance or fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for this damage.
The tenant did not know what happened to the gully cover. The inspection report dated 29 June 2021 shows the gully trap in several photographs (152 General 3 and 160 General 11) and it does appear to have a cover. It is also shown in the ingoing report dated 30 March 2021, but the photographs are very small. The healthy homes assessment report obtained by the tenant dated 27 June 2024 (discussed below) appears to show the gully trap cover missing. I award this cost.
The tenant said they did not have any smoke alarms during the tenancy. The landlord’s inspection reports do not refer to any missing smoke alarms until the inspection on 16 May 2024. It is unlikely that the landlord’s inspections would not have commented earlier if smoke alarms were missing. At the same time, as discussed below, the evidence about the number and location of smoke alarms during the tenancy is inconsistent. I decline to award the cost of replacement smoke alarms.
The tenant acknowledged that the premises did need some painting. The inspection report on 16 May 2024 referred to drawings and marks on the walls of bedrooms 1 and 2. There were marks and paint-chips in the lounge.
A large hole in the bathroom wall was identified at a routine inspection on 12 August 2022. There was subsequently an attempt at repair, as shown in a later inspection on 16 May 2024, where the hole had been patched but not painted.
There was damage to a toilet wall behind the door. The tenant noted the absence of a doorstop in the toilet at the inspection on 29 June 2021 (054 Bathroom 54). The damage to the toilet wall was identified and photographed at the 12 August 2022 inspection (008 Bathroom 8). The 16 May 2024 report noted there was a hole in the toilet wall “due to no door stopper” (125 Bathroom 22).
In principle I consider the tenant is not liable for the toilet wall damage, which was caused by the lack of a doorstop. However, in practice it is impossible to determine what proportion of the claim for paint should be deducted to account for it. I award the materials cost of painting the bathroom, bedroom, and lounge walls without deduction. Property Maintenance
The tenancy started on 30 March 2021 and was initially for a fixed term until 29 March 2022. The evidence presented does not indicate that any further tenancy agreement was subsequently signed. The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 do not apply to the tenancy until 1 July 2025 (the 2019 Regulations).
However, the premises still had to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 (the 2016 Regulations). The landlord also had an obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises, which were built in about 1998 (section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)).
The ingoing inspection report dated 30 March 2021 referred to cracked floor tiles in the kitchen requiring maintenance.
An inspection report dated 29 June 2021 referred to cracked floor tiles needing maintenance in the kitchen. The flooring in the laundry was “decaying” and required checking urgently. The accompanying photographs show uneven and slightly cracked tiling in the kitchen, and a small hole in the laundry floor. In a later inspection report dated 12 August 2022, the kitchen flooring appears in similar condition although a large mat had been placed over a broken tile. The laundry vinyl flooring had come away across a long rectangular area.
An inspection report dated 16 May 2024 identified missing smoke alarms in the hallway, lounge and kitchen. A hole in the floor with missing wood panels was noted in the laundry. The photographs show a large hole through the tiling and underfloor in the kitchen near the doorway to the laundry. There were now several tiles missing at both ends of the kitchen. The laundry floor appears to have been in a similar condition to the previous inspection. The final inspection report, dated 22 July 2024, reiterated these findings.
The tenant obtained a healthy homes assessment report on 12 June 2024. A document titled “Suggested Actions” identified a hole in the wall in the bathroom, a hole in the hallway wall, and wet and rotting interior floors in “urgent” need of repair. The landlord provided an invoice dated 6 June 2024 from a private building company for $1,115.33 to “change rotten floor in the kitchen”. This likely relates to a temporary repair.
A separate assessment report, dated 27 June 2024, identified a downpipe not connected to a gutter, blocked gutters, a lack of ventilation in the kitchen, a draught in the kitchen (a photograph showed a large rectangular piece of plywood installed over the floor) and a failure to meet the required heating capacity. Some of the underfloor insulation was falling down and the ceiling insulation was not in reasonable condition: it was described as “broken and non-fluffy”. The ceiling insulation had 60mm thickness at its lowest point. The report said the thickness of the insulation was less than 120mm and was in poor condition.
The tenant obtained a report from a project manager with a private building company dated 28 May 2024. This referred to exposed electrical wires requiring urgent attention. The builder referred to the plumbing waste pipework causing a water leak and requiring reinstatement. The report said water from the kitchen sink had affected the structural integrity of the floor and compromised the foundation of the kitchen tiles. The landlord produced an invoice dated 17 June 2024 which referred to “live wires under the sink”. A junction box was fitted to secure the wires, at a cost of $110.00 plus GST. This invoice also noted that the outlet connection of the sink was damaged, increasing water damage underneath.
The landlord obtained a healthy homes assessment report following an inspection on 1 August 2024. The premises were identified as non-compliant in terms of the applicable insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress, draught- stopping and smoke alarm standards. There were 2 smoke alarms but there needed to be a working smoke alarm within 3 metres of each bedroom, requiring installation of a further alarm. The ceiling insulation was non-compliant because it was in “unacceptable” condition and did not meet the minimum R- value (R2.9). The underfloor insulation was non-compliant although it met the minimum thickness (R1.5) and was in good condition. It had not been properly installed and some was loose. Analysis
The ceiling insulation as installed was required to have an R-value of 2.9 and be in reasonable condition. The landlord installed ceiling insulation on or about 10 September 2020 and provided a compliance certificate. This, however, estimated the R-value at 2.6 “...based on current thickness”. The underfloor insulation, installed at the same time, was certified as having the required R- value of 1.3.
It is too technical a breach to award compensation against the landlord for installing ceiling insulation with an R-value of 2.6 instead of 2.9, especially where this value was being estimated together with pre-existing insulation. The more substantive failing is that the ceiling insulation was very degraded by the end of the tenancy, as shown in both healthy homes assessment reports. The underfloor insulation was the correct thickness but appears not to have been installed correctly and some of it was displaced, possibly affecting its performance. I note that the 2019 Regulations prescribe that ceiling insulation is not in reasonable condition if the minimum thickness of the insulation is less than 120mm. Although the 2019 Regulations do not apply yet to these premises, I take them into account when considering whether the ceiling insulation was in reasonable condition. The ceiling insulation was identified as being only 60mm thick.
I find that the ceiling and underfloor insulation did not comply with the 2016 Regulations. It is unclear why or at what rate the insulation deteriorated over the course of the tenancy, which started on 30 March 2021. The tenant did not complain of cold or damp conditions in the premises generally, although they said it had not helped their sons’ asthma. I award 2 weeks’ rent as compensation for failure to maintain the insulation in accordance with the Regulations ($1,260.00).
The landlord knew there was a problem with the kitchen and laundry floors from an early stage, because it was clearly identified as a significant issue in the 29 June 2021 inspection report. The situation worsened over time, and it seems the landlord put down some plywood to cover the decaying floor in the laundry (see the 12 August 2022 inspection report, 185 Laundry 1). The only repairs to the kitchen floor which the Tribunal has evidence of were performed in June 2024, following the work order.
I do not accept the landlord’s view that the tenant or their children damaged the flooring because they had damaged the bathroom wall. The uneven surface of the tiling in the early inspection reports and the tenant’s reference to the floor being “molded through [sic]” in an email dated 11 April 2021 strongly suggests the issue was with dampness, potentially linked to the leak from the kitchen sink, causing gradual decay. The builder’s opinion supports that view. Ultimately, the flooring in the kitchen and laundry deteriorated to a point where it became hazardous. I find that the landlord failed to comply with their obligations because the floor was not maintained in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant claimed a 20% rent refund for 6 months ($3,064.00) noting that they had not been able to use the kitchen sink for 6-12 months. The condition of the kitchen and laundry flooring became hazardous towards the end of the tenancy. I award compensation of $20.00 per week from 12 September 2022 (when there was clearly an issue requiring maintenance which had not been addressed) to 23 May 2024 (88 weeks and 4 days) an award of $1,771.43. I also award $100.00 per week from 24 May 2024 (when the flooring had completely worn through) to 6 June 2024 when temporary repairs were performed (2 weeks) an award of $200.00. The total compensation awarded for the condition of the flooring is $1,971.43.
The premises also suffered from unsafe electrical wiring in the kitchen cabinet under the sink. Section 15A of the Electrical (Safety) Regulations 2010 provides that a landlord of residential premises must not provide any fittings or appliances under or in connection with a residential tenancy if they are electrically unsafe.
I find that the landlord in this instance failed to comply with these Regulations, which do not require the landlord to have known of the problem. Fortunately, no one was seriously hurt, and although the tenant said she had received an electric shock from the wiring, there is no indication of significant injury. The premises were not as electrically safe as they should have been, and there was a risk of injury to the tenant and her children. I award compensation of 1 week’s rent ($630.00).
I am unable to determine whether there was a breach of the 2016 Regulations relating to smoke alarms. The healthy homes assessment report obtained by the landlord identified 2 smoke alarms but said there needed to be a third. The tenancy agreement stated there were 2 smoke alarms at the property. The inspection reports dated 29 June 2021 and 12 August 2022 only refer to a smoke alarm in the laundry. However, the exit inspection report dated 22 July 2023 identified 3 missing smoke alarms in the hallway, kitchen, and lounge. The landlord provided photographs showing smoke alarms attached to the ceiling and on the floor. The photographs were taken some time after the end of the tenancy.
The requirement under the 2016 Regulations is for there to be a smoke alarm on each floor in one of the “habitable spaces” and a smoke alarm within 3 metres of the entrance to each bedroom. The evidence paints an inconsistent picture about the numbers and locations of the smoke alarms and whether there was a smoke alarm close to each bedroom. I am unable to find that there was a failure to meet the requirements for smoke alarms. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
Both parties have had some success. It is appropriate that they bear their own costs.
Neither party sought suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4778618 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 24 Trentham Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4778618 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 24 Trentham Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions