What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4809417?

The tribunal order states: Lokesh Sharma to pay Land Agents (2007) Limited As Agent For Ulf

How much money was awarded in case 4809417?

Cleaning: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $67.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $192.05 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $87.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4809417?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4809417?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10615449-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4809417?

The tribunal order states: Lokesh Sharma to pay Land Agents (2007) Limited As Agent For Ulf

How much money was awarded in case 4809417?

Cleaning: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $67.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $192.05 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $87.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4809417?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4809417?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10615449-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 The Drive, Brookfield, Tauranga 3110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4809417 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4809417 — net $1,946.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears – 1 January 2024	$87.14		Rent arrears – 1 January 2024
Cleaning	$1,500.00		Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$280.00		Lawns and Garden work
Light bulbs	$67.00		Light bulbs
Repair hole in wall	$192.05		Repair hole in wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages		$200.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$2,146.63	$200.00
Net award	$1,946.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,946.63

Both parties made a claim against the other in relation to Mr Sharma’s tenancy on Brookfield Drive.

The applications were scheduled to be heard in the Tenancy Tribunal in Tauranga.

Prior to the hearing the tenant advised the Tribunal that he would not be able to attend the hearing because of health issues. The Tribunal communicated on a number of occasions with the tenant and his wife who elected not to have the hearing adjourned, not to appear by teleconference and not to have a representative to attend the hearing in their place. The tenant wanted the matter heard and determined in his absence.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant has applied for compensation and awards of exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. The landlord’s claim

How much is owed for rent?

The notice of termination dated 30 October 2023 puts the end of the tenancy at 1 January 2024. The rent record shows that the tenant paid rent to 31 December 2023 and so one more day of rent is owing. One day of rent is $87.14 and so the tenant is required to pay this amount.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The photographs taken after the tenant had vacated and provided by the landlord, show that the premises were left in an extremely dirty condition.

The invoiced cost of cleaning the premises was $1,725.00. I have reduced the amount payable by the tenant to $1,500.00 to reflect that the tenant is required to leave the premises in a reasonably clean condition, and not a perfectly clean condition, while also acknowledging that these premises were left extremely dirty.

I accept the evidence that the landlord had to replace 10 light bulbs because they were either not working or missing. The cost of replacing theses was established as being $67.00.

I note the tenant’s comment that the electrical wiring was not in good condition which meant that the bulbs kept blowing even after a couple of days, and that as a result he used only 1 or 2 bulbs.

However I also note that the pre-entry inspection report records that all lights were working at the beginning of the tenancy and I accept the landlord’s evidence that the tenant had not advised them of any light bulb issue during his tenancy.

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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B 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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

I accept the evidence indicating that a hole in one of the bedrooms occurred at the beginning of the tenant’s tenancy as he was moving in to the property. The tenant is therefore required to pay the cost of its repair which was invoiced at $192.05. I note that this amount is less than the excess payable under the landlord’s insurance policy. Filing fee reimbursement

The landlord was substantially successful in their claim against the tenant and so the tenant is required to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord. The tenant’s claim Breach of s45

Lokesh Sharma claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under s45 by: (a) Failing to repair holes in the roof in a timely way; and (b) Failing to clean the deck; and (c) Failing to clean the driveway and path; and (d) Failing to repair a damaged carpet; and (e) Providing a house which contained asbestos; and (f) Failing to repair a power point casing; and (g) Providing a wash basin with a crack in it which was glued; and (h) Failing to remove grass growing in the gutter; and (i) Malfunctioning toilet; and (j) Providing a home that had old wiring which was not fit for purpose; and (k) Providing a home with mouldy curtains; and (l) The HRV system was never cleaned or maintained.

I shall take each of the claims in turn. Repair holes in roof

The tenant’s application states that there were three holes in the roof and that although a temporary repair was done for two holes the hole in the ceiling over the entrance way was not repaired.

I was unable to question the tenant today on his recall of events and the timeliness of any repairs done. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, then, I accept the owner’s evidence at today’s hearing that he was aware of only two holes in the roof. I accept that he repaired one hole at the end of the corridor within 2 weeks of being notified that it was there.

I also accept his evidence that he was advised of the hole in the ceiling in the entrance way in December 2022 and that this hole was not repaired for the remaining year that the tenant resided there.

On this evidence I find that the owner has committed an unlawful act for failing to repair the hole in the ceiling in the entrance way.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I am satisfied that the owner failed to repair this hole intentionally. Although at today’s hearing he stated that the tenant did not allow him access to the premises a couple of times, and that there was considerable rain over the summer, I do not consider this to be a reasonable excuse for failing to repair the hole over a whole year.

With regard to the owner’s intent, at today’s hearing the owner stated that it was a big job and not an easy fix.

The tenant’s application showed photographs of having to place a bowl under the leak and he states that he was required to change the bowl when it rained heavily.

The photographs provided by the tenant also show a garage which appears to have a wet floor. The tenant claims that photographs and documents were lost because of this wetness.

However, I do not think that these photographs belong to this part of the claim because I accept that the hole in the entrance way ceiling was quite a distance from the garage.

In coming to an award of $200.00 in exemplary damages for this breach I have taken into account the limited evidence of any effect on the tenant, although also acknowledging tenant and public interest in landlords abiding by their obligations. Failing to clean the deck

I am dismissing this part of the tenant’s claim for reasons that include: (a) The pre-entry report completed when the tenant began the tenancy shows a deck that is reasonably clean; and (b) There was no evidence of any complaints to the landlord about the deck during the tenancy; and (c) The tenant is required to report any issues to the landlord during their tenancy and is also required to themselves keep the premises reasonably clean. Failing to clean the paths and the driveway

I am dismissing this part of the tenant’s claim because: (a) The pre-entry inspection report shows that the paths and driveway ere reasonably clean; and (b) I accept that the landlord had the paths and driveway cleaned on 26 April 2023; and (c) The tenant has a responsibility to keep the paths and driveway reasonably clean during their tenancy. Failing to repair a damaged carpet

I am dismissing this part of the tenant’s claim because there was no photographic evidence to support the claim and because I accept that the tenant had not advised the landlord of this issue during their tenancy. Providing a house which contained asbestos

The tenant claims that a power company did not change a meter because of asbestos in the house and that the holes in the roof was caused because the ceiling contained asbestos.

I am dismissing this part of the tenant’s claim because I accept a report completed by Eurofins in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 4964 – 2004, and dated 8 July 2024, that there was no asbestos detected at the premises. Failing to repair a power point casing

I have been provided with a photograph of a cracked power point casing.

I am dismissing this part of the tenant’s claim because I accept that he did not advise the landlord of this issue during the tenancy and because a landlord is only required to provide premises in a reasonable state of repair, rather that in perfect condition. I do not think that a cracked power point casing means that the premises were not in reasonable condition. Providing a wash basin with a crack in it which was glued

I am dismissing this part of the tenant’s claim because the photograph he provided and the evidence provided at today’s hearing show that while there was indeed a hairline crack in the basin that had been glued, this does not mean that the premises were not provided in a reasonable state of repair.

I note that the tenant did not complain about this issue during his tenancy. Failure to remove grass growing in the gutter

The tenant provided a photograph of a clump of grass in the gutter.

I am dismissing this part of the tenant’s claim because: (a) The pre-entry inspection report shows that the gutters were clear; and (b) It is the tenant’s responsibility to advise the landlord of any issues during the tenancy; and (c) I accept that the landlord was not so notified; and (d) There was no evidence of this clump of grass having any effect on the tenant whatsoever. Malfunctioning toilet

The tenant claims that one of the toilets in the premises often did not work and says that the plumber told him that it was old and that it needed replacement.

I am dismissing this part of the tenant’s claim because there was no evidence provided from the plumber directly and there was no evidence of the toilet malfunctioning a number of times.

I accept the direct evidence from the landlord that they had the toilet repaired in a timely way once they were notified of the issue. Providing a home that had old wiring which was not fit for purpose

The tenant states that the wiring in the home needed replacing. He claims that the circuits would trip if more than one electrical appliance was used at a time, the light bulbs would require replacement within a couple of days of being used, and that the ceiling fans were not wired properly and so were not working as they were supposed to do.

He states that an electrical contractor advised him that the wiring was not fit for purpose and that the meter boards may all have asbestos.

I am dismissing this part of the tenant’s claim for reasons that include: (a) I have no direct evidence available to me from an electrical contractor; and (b) I accept the direct evidence from the landlord that the ceiling fans had been checked and there was no issue with them; and (c) The tenants had not advised them of the light bulb issue or the circuit tripping issue during their tenancy; and (d) The pre-entry inspection report shows that all light bulbs were working when the tenancy began; and (e) As stated earlier, I accept that there was no asbestos in these premises. Providing a home with mouldy curtains

The tenant claims that at the beginning of the tenancy all the curtains in the premises were stiff and mouldy and that he had the curtains changed in his daughter’s bedroom because the curtains in there were mouldy.

I am dismissing this part of the tenant’s claim because the pre-entry inspection report shows that the curtains were in reasonable condition at the beginning of the tenancy and there was no mention of mould. The HRV system was never cleaned or maintained

The tenant states that the HRV system in the house has not been cleaned or maintained and that “visually there appears to be significant accumulation of different contaminants”.

I am dismissing this part of the tenant’s claim because I accept the landlord’s evidence that the house did not contain an HRV system. Rather, it contained a Heat Transfer System which does not need servicing or cleaning because it does not contain filters. It works by way of ducting. Insulation

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached an obligation under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to insulate the premises in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016, by breaching the requirements to insulate the property to a certain standard.

He says that there is no roof insulation.

From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.

Where insulation is installed after 1 July 2016, the minimum R-value for ceiling insulation is 2.9 in Zones 1 and 2, and 3.3 for Zone 3 (Zone 3 covers the South Island and central North Island). The minimum R-value for underfloor insulation is 1.3.

There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45 (1)(A) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The tenant claims that his breach has caused the house to be damp, cold ad mouldy. The tenant did not provide any objective evidence to support this contention.

I am dismissing this part of the tenant’s claim because I accept the contents of an independent Healthy Homes Standard Report, written by an accredited building surveyor, which assessed the insulation in the premises as being sufficient. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards

The tenant claims that the premises were cold and mouldy.

Although he does not specify which Healthy Homes Standards have been breached, I suspect that the tenant is saying that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).

I will consider whether the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard; the ventilation standard; and the moisture ingress and drainage standard.

The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.

The heating standard requires that heaters in a particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity.

The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

In support of this part of the claim the tenant has provided a photograph of a temperature gauge in the living room showing a reading of 9.5 c .

The ventilation standards requires that buildings have the appropriate kitchen and bathroom extractor fans, and that the living room, dining room, kitchen and bedrooms have at least one or more windows that open to the outdoors and can be fixed in an open position. The combined area of openable area of the windows, doors or skylights must be at least 5% of the floor area in each room.

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.

The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

I note that in regard to moisture ingress and drainage systems, perhaps the photo of a wet garage was provided to the Tribunal to support the tenant’s contention of a breach.

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).

I am dismissing each claim under this heading. I am doing so for reasons that include: (a) I accept the objective evidence in the form of a Healthy Homes Standard report which shows that there is no breach of any of these standards; and (b) The garage floor may have become wet for any number of reasons and the photograph does not prove that the landlord has breached any of their obligations; and (c) The low temperature may be as a result of not turning the heating on. The photograph of the temperature gauge does not mean there is insufficient heating, especially as the Report referred to above indicates that there is no breach of the heating standard. Filing fee reimbursement

I am dismissing the tenant’s claim for reimbursement of the filing fee because he was not wholly or substantially in the claim that he was making against the landlord. He must therefore bear his own cost of filing in the Tribunal. Suppression of the tenant’s name

Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest, or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

The tenant has applied for suppression of his name but given that he has not wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings I am not able to order suppression under the provisions of s95A(3).

I am also not ordering suppression pursuant to the provisions of s95(A(1) because I do not see any special circumstances relating to the interests of the parties and to the public interest which would persuade me to do so. C ter Haar 23 July 2024

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4809417 — net $1,946.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears – 1 January 2024	$87.14		Rent arrears – 1 January 2024
Cleaning	$1,500.00		Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$280.00		Lawns and Garden work
Light bulbs	$67.00		Light bulbs
Repair hole in wall	$192.05		Repair hole in wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages		$200.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$2,146.63	$200.00
Net award	$1,946.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,946.63