What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4822158?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,440.00 (5533519-017) to Mua

How much money was awarded in case 4822158?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4822158?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4822158?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10382113-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4822158?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,440.00 (5533519-017) to Mua

How much money was awarded in case 4822158?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4822158?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4822158?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10382113-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Chesterton Terrace, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4822158 — Exemplary damages

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,440.00 (5533519-017) to Mua Laurenson immediately.
Resolute Property Management Limited as agent for Etwell Pausigere and Joyce Pausigere must pay Mua Laurenson $1,697.21 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was assisted by a support person, Ms Larson. The landlord was represented by Ms Harlow.
The tenancy began on 23 October 2023. The tenant moved into the property with her young son. They were initially enthusiastic about the property and, after seeking permission from the landlord, painted the walls.
The tenant however soon started to have concerns about the condition of the property, lack of maintenance and other issues.
The tenant filed a claim 28 February 2024 seeking work orders, compensation and exemplary damages for failure to maintain, breach of the Healthy Homes Standards and for breach of quiet enjoyment but the tenancy ended on 3 April 2024, before this matter could be heard.
The landlord then filed a claim on 7 May 2024 seeking compensation for rent arrears, water rates, cleaning, compensation for damage and refund of the bond.
The party bringing a claim in the Tribunal bears the onus to prove their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities). If the Tribunal does not find a claim proved it does not necessarily mean that party is wrong, it simply means that there was not sufficient evidence to find the claim proven.
For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence produced at the hearing but the parties should be assured that I have carefully reviewed all of the evidence filed and presented in reaching my decision. The tenant’s claims
The tenant claimed that: a. the tenancy agreement did not state whether or not the property complied with the heating section (that section of the tenancy agreement having been left blank); b. There was no heat pump; c. There were no smoke alarms; d. The carpet smelled bad when she moved in; e. Her bedroom windows leaked during the flooding in Auckland on 27 January 2023 and then shortly afterwards in early February following cyclone Gabrielle; f. There was a leak in the ensuite following the flooding and cyclone; g. Some of the vertical blinds were missing; h. There was a downlight in need of electrical repairs and a socket that would often trip the fuse if something was plugged in; i. There were leaks in the toilet and water meter which caused the water bills to be high; j. The landlord entered without permission and while she was not home, breaching her quiet enjoyment of the property.
Section 45(1)(a) – (c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that:
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. Smoke alarms, carpets
The tenant claimed that there were no smoke alarms when she moved in and that the carpet smelled.
The landlord claimed that the tenant removed the smoke alarms and that they had to be replaced. Both parties produced photos, and the tenant also produced video, from various stages during the tenancy on this issue. All I could determine is that there was a smoke alarm fitting (without a smoke alarm) at some stage during the tenancy, and that this was replaced by the landlord toward the end of the tenancy. This claim is therefore not proved on the balance of probabilities.
Likewise, there was not sufficient evidence before me to prove that there had been issues with the carpet from the start of the tenancy. Blinds
The tenant had concerns about the condition of the blinds. Some of the roller blinds were mouldy at the bottom and the venetian blinds had some missing slats.
The landlord explained that they in fact replaced a number of the blinds during the tenancy and provided an invoice.
I do not consider that this claim is proven. Leaks
The tenant claimed that during the Auckland floods and cyclone Gabrielle there were leaks in the ensuite bathroom and that water leaked through her bedroom windows.
The landlord confirmed that there had been leaks. They produced an invoice showing that the leak above the ensuite had been promptly repaired. They said in relation to the carpet in the bedroom that it had been a fairly small area and that the landlord’s insurer was so inundated with claims that they were unable to come and dry out the carpet in that area. Correspondence was provided confirming the position. The landlord reduced the rent by $100 per week for eight weeks ($800) to compensate the tenant for the inconvenience.
I consider that the landlord responded to the leaks promptly and that the tenant has been appropriately compensated. Heat pump
The tenant said that the portion of the tenancy agreement that sets out compliance with the heating standard was left blank, and that there was no heat pump (or in fact any heating in the living area).
The tenant said that the property was very cold and that she was frequently having to clean mould. She explained that her son had been sick and that they had frequently been to the doctor, emergency doctors and at one stage the hospital due to illness (and provided copies of medical notes).
Section 45(1)(bb) provides that the landlord must comply with the Healthy Home standards. This means providing a statement in the Tenancy Agreement as to compliance with the heating standard, and complying with the standard by providing heating that complies.
The landlord said that the owners of the property sought a quote for installing a heat pump at the start of the tenancy but decided not to proceed due to cost. However following a meeting with the tenant in early November 2023, they agreed to go ahead almost immediately and a heat pump was installed on 6 November 2023.
The landlord was upfront about the fact that the owner was not in a financial position to install a heat pump and that the property was therefore not compliant until November 2023. Ms Harlow acknowledged that the landlord should have complied but said that the rent was lower than it would otherwise would have been due to the non-compliance.
I consider that the tenant is entitled to some compensation. Her home was not as warm and dry as it should have been. It is difficult to be precise when calculating compensation, but I consider that an overall sum of $2,000 is appropriate. This is to compensate the tenant for the loss of amenity but also for the inconvenience of living in a cold home and all of the issues that can cause.
The landlord knew that they had to comply with the heating standard but failed to do so. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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) RTA.
It is well known that cold and damp conditions can lead to illness and make it difficult to keep mould at bay. The Healthy Home standards were introduced for this reason. It is in the public interest that landlords comply with the standards to ensure that homes are warm and dry.
I therefore consider that it is just to make an award of exemplary damages, and I award $2,500 (approximately one-third of the maximum amount). In doing so I have taken into account the fact that the landlord did in fact install heating, although this was after approximately one year.
I do not consider that it is appropriate to make a separate award for the landlord’s failure to provide a statement in the tenancy agreement relating to the heating standard compliance (particularly in light of section 109(2)(b) RTA). Electrical issues
The tenant claimed that there was an issue with a downlight and that one of the sockets would often trip the fuse when used.
The landlord explained that as soon as the downlight was brought to their attention they had it fixed, and provided an invoice showing that the work had been done.
The landlord said that they were unable to work out whether the socket issue was caused by on the of the tenant’s appliances or was a fault, as it was intermittent, and the tenancy ended before the cause could be established.
Having considered all of the evidence carefully I do not find this claim proven. Water issues
There were water leaks at the property (an overflowing toilet and later a leak at the water meter) which caused high water bills. The tenant was confused about the water bills and sought assistance from budgeting and advisors and CAB who wrote to the landlord seeking clarification.
The landlord also made a claim in relation to water rates and so I have deal with the tenant’s claim below as part of the landlord’s claim as the analysis is the same in both claims.
In relation to the tenant’s claim, I do not find that there was any overcharging for water. Inspection while tenant not home
Mua Laurenson claims that Ms Harlow entered her property while she wasn’t home. She said that she felt particularly upset as she did not give Ms Harlow permission to come in when she wasn’t home, and that a note was left asking her to replace the smoke alarms but there hadn’t been any when she moved in.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Ms Harlow explained that she gave the tenant at least 48 hours’ notice as required by section 48(2)(b) of the RTA and that she had complied with the law when entering.
I accept that the landlord has acted lawfully. The landlord has a right of entry as long as they comply with section 48 RTA and the landlord did so in this case. There is no requirement that a tenant be home if notice has been given. It is however common for landlords to try to accommodate tenant’s wishes in this regard where possible and so I do understand the tenant’s concerns. The landlord’s claims

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 3 April 2024. The landlord provided rent records proving the amount owing. The tenant reviewed the rent records at the hearing and confirmed the amount owing, and accordingly the order for rent arrears in the amount of $958.57 is made by consent.
The landlord provided copies of the water invoices provided to the tenant, together with the original Watercare invoices. The landlord explained that there is a house where the tenant lived, but also an attached unit, and both are on the same water meter. There is a check meter for the unit. The landlord therefore receives the Watercare invoice, deducts the fixed charges, and then physically attends at the unit to record the units on the check meter and deducts the unit’s usage from the water invoice provided to the tenant.
The tenant was confused about the billing for the water. Not only was the billing difficult for her to follow, there were also two leaks (a leaking toilet and then a leak near the meter itself) which caused high water readings and she had also thought that WINZ had paid one outstanding invoice direct.
We spent some time at the hearing reviewing the invoices and cross checking against the landlord’s records. I am satisfied that the water claimed is owing. While there were two leaks, the landlord was quick to arrange repairs and sought and obtained a rebate in each case ($162.69 for the leak from the toilet and $172.04 for the leak at the meter). Both rebates were applied to the tenants’ water account.
The tenant was also concerned that a WINZ payment had not been applied to the water arrears, but on review it was clear that the payment had in fact been applied to the water arrears (although a slightly lesser amount as part was applied to rent arrears).
The amount owing for water of $1,844.22 is proved.

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 landlord claimed that the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. They say that the windowsills, curtain tracks, oven, dishwasher and rangehood filters were not clean, and that the outside of the cabinets was sticky, the bathrooms needed to be wiped over and that no dusting of vacuuming had been done. The landlord produced some photos of specific areas and an invoice in the amount of $672.99 for cleaning.
The tenant showed a video which she took after moving out and cleaning, which shows the property to be clean although not perfectly clean in every single area.
Having carefully reviewed and considered the evidence I am satisfied that overall the tenant left the property reasonably clean and tidy. A tenant does not need to leave a property in perfect condition in every respect and ready for another tenant to move into. It is to be expected that a landlord will need to do some additional deep cleaning before the property is ready to be re-let.

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.
The landlord sought a small sum for repairing the blinds (some blades were alleged to be missing) and replacing various light bulbs.
I do not consider that sufficient evidence was produced to prove the claimed damage, the tenant disputed the damage, and there was no invoice provided.
The claim for damage is not proven and is dismissed. Name suppression and filing fee
As neither party has been substantially successful, I have not refunded the filing fee.
Neither party sought suppression orders (and in my view neither party is entitled to an order for suppression).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4822158 — Exemplary damages at 3 Chesterton Terrace, Henderson, Auckland 0612

Tenancy Tribunal case 4822158 — Exemplary damages at 3 Chesterton Terrace, Henderson, Auckland 0612

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management