What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4823598?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 immediately apportioned as

How much money was awarded in case 4823598?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,122.86 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $25.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4823598?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4823598?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10263177-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4823598?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 immediately apportioned as

How much money was awarded in case 4823598?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,122.86 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $25.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4823598?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4823598?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10263177-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 7, 83 Vodanovich Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4823598 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4823598 — net $1,248.76 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,122.86		Rent arrears
Water rates	$25.90		Water rates
Cleaning	$300.00		Cleaning
Compensation		$1,200.00	Compensation
Total award	$2,448.76	$1,200.00
Net award	$1,248.76
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,248.76

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 immediately apportioned as follows and as shown in the table below: Reliance Property Management Limited: $1,248.76 Shayna Clausen: $1,151.24

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy relates to a property at Flat 7, 83 Vodanovich Road , Auckland (“the premises”). The tenancy commenced on 15 July 2021 and ended on 10 July 2023.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not and similarly the tenant must establish that whet they are claiming is more likely than not.
The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, 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. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
The Tribunal is not governed by the usual laws of evidence. The Tribunal may accept and consider any evidence. What is of importance, is the weight attached to that evidence by the Tribunal. As an example, the Tribunal is likely to attach more weight to evidence from a witness who is present at the hearing and who is available to be cross-examined, as distinct from evidence provided by way of a written statement from a witness who is not present at the hearing.
In this case, both parties have submitted documentary evidence including emails, photos and txt messages. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented, however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.
Prior to reviewing the evidence of the parties in relation to these claims, I wish to record that I found the parties to this hearing to be diligent and honest people. I have absolutely no doubt that all parties came to the hearing with a genuine desire to provide their evidence in a truthful manner.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, plumbing costs, compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, work orders, failure to maintain, breach of the healthy homes standards relating to moisture and drainage, compensation for loss of amenity, breach of quiet enjoyment, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee. Landlord claims
The tenancy ended on 10 July 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $2,122.86 for rent and $25.90 for water. The tenant did not dispute the calculation of these amounts, but considered that her cross application should be taken into consideration in setting a final figure.
The landlord claims $92.00 for plumbing costs. The landlord says that the tenant raised concerns about the bathroom plumbing. The landlord sent a plumber to inspect the property. This plumber was unable to find a problem with the bathroom plumbing.
The tenant contacted the landlord again and said that the bathroom plumbing was still causing issues. A second and different plumber, was sent and once again this plumber could not find a problem. The landlord seeks compensation for the costs incurred in sending the second plumber.
It will become apparent from my order with regards to the tenant cross application, that I do not consider that the plumbing was repaired and the inability of the plumbers to access and repair the problem is not the fault of the tenant. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord claims $632.50 for a move out clean, rubbish removal and garden work.
The landlord confirmed that the property has been relet and that the cleaning claimed for is the only cleaning carried out between the end of this tenancy and the new tenancy commencing. I have viewed the photos provided by the landlord of the premises at the end of the tenancy. The tenant is required to leave the premises “reasonably clean and tidy.” It is generally accepted that this reasonably clean and tidy standard, is a lower standard than might be expected for premises at the start of a new tenancy.
Having reviewed the photos, I consider that a reasonable fee to bring the premises to standard required is $300.00. The tenant is ordered to pay the landlord $300.00.
The landlord claims $402.50 for the removal of furniture from the property. This included a couch, table and a cabinet. The landlord says that these items were included in the chattel list for the property and that they had been damaged by the tenant. The new tenants did not consider them acceptable and in September 2023 they were removed.
No claim for compensation for damage to these items has been filed by the landlord. I do not know whether an insurance excess may have applied. In any event, the tenant is not liable for removal costs and the claim is dismissed. Tenant claims
I explained to the tenant that as the tenancy had ended many months ago, a claim for work orders was no longer relevant.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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 says that the bathroom sink did not drain properly and that the shower leaked into the downstairs rooms.
The landlord was first advised of this on 4 April 2022.The landlord called a plumber who went to the property on 5 May 2022.The plumber’s invoice records that no leaks through the ceiling were found.
On 26 May 2022, the tenant issued the landlord with a 14 day breach notice relating to both the bathroom sink and leaking shower.
Approximately one month later a builder came and removed damaged pipe from the ceiling which partially repaired the issue, although the tenant says that there were still intermittent leaks.
The landlord said that some of the delays were as a result of time delays in dealing with the owner and the builders of the premises.
Following a further complaint by the tenant, a second plumber and it should be noted different plumber, attended at the premises a few days later and that plumber could not find any leaks.
Where a tenant complains to a landlord of a maintenance issue, the landlord should have a reasonable time within which to arrange for repairs. In this case the issue related to the sole bathroom at the premises. The tenant could not use the bathroom for 3 months. I do not consider 3 months to be a reasonable period to complete repairs.
I find that the landlord has 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 109 (2)(b) RTA requires any application for exemplary damages to be filed no later than 12 months after the commission of the unlawful act. The unlawful act occurred in 2022. The tenant application was submitted on 29 February 2024.The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The tenant sought compensation for her inability to use the bathroom for three months. This has caused a loss of amenity in her use of the premises. The weekly rent on these premises was 500.00. I consider that the weekly rental that can be assigned to the use of the bathroom is $100.00. The period where the bathroom could not be used equates to 12 weeks. The landlord is ordered to pay the tenant compensation of $1,200.00.
The tenant claims 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). The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
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.
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(1A).
For the reasons set out previously in this application the claim for exemplary damages is time barred pursuant to s.109(2)(b) RTA and I consider that the appropriate compensation for the bathroom leak has already been awarded.
The tenant said that her quiet enjoyment of the premises had been breached. She described what must have been a very frightening incident where she discovered a tenant from nearby premises inside her house. Whilst that must have been very concerning, the owner of the premises was not the owner of the premises where the intruder lived. The landlord carries no responsibility or liability in the circumstances as explained by the tenant.
Neither party has been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and I make not order for reimbursement of the filing fee or name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4823598 — net $1,248.76 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,122.86		Rent arrears
Water rates	$25.90		Water rates
Cleaning	$300.00		Cleaning
Compensation		$1,200.00	Compensation
Total award	$2,448.76	$1,200.00
Net award	$1,248.76
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,248.76

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 immediately apportioned as follows and as shown in the table below: Reliance Property Management Limited: $1,248.76 Shayna Clausen: $1,151.24

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy relates to a property at Flat 7, 83 Vodanovich Road , Auckland (“the premises”). The tenancy commenced on 15 July 2021 and ended on 10 July 2023.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not and similarly the tenant must establish that whet they are claiming is more likely than not.
The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, 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. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
The Tribunal is not governed by the usual laws of evidence. The Tribunal may accept and consider any evidence. What is of importance, is the weight attached to that evidence by the Tribunal. As an example, the Tribunal is likely to attach more weight to evidence from a witness who is present at the hearing and who is available to be cross-examined, as distinct from evidence provided by way of a written statement from a witness who is not present at the hearing.
In this case, both parties have submitted documentary evidence including emails, photos and txt messages. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented, however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.
Prior to reviewing the evidence of the parties in relation to these claims, I wish to record that I found the parties to this hearing to be diligent and honest people. I have absolutely no doubt that all parties came to the hearing with a genuine desire to provide their evidence in a truthful manner.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, plumbing costs, compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, work orders, failure to maintain, breach of the healthy homes standards relating to moisture and drainage, compensation for loss of amenity, breach of quiet enjoyment, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee. Landlord claims
The tenancy ended on 10 July 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $2,122.86 for rent and $25.90 for water. The tenant did not dispute the calculation of these amounts, but considered that her cross application should be taken into consideration in setting a final figure.
The landlord claims $92.00 for plumbing costs. The landlord says that the tenant raised concerns about the bathroom plumbing. The landlord sent a plumber to inspect the property. This plumber was unable to find a problem with the bathroom plumbing.
The tenant contacted the landlord again and said that the bathroom plumbing was still causing issues. A second and different plumber, was sent and once again this plumber could not find a problem. The landlord seeks compensation for the costs incurred in sending the second plumber.
It will become apparent from my order with regards to the tenant cross application, that I do not consider that the plumbing was repaired and the inability of the plumbers to access and repair the problem is not the fault of the tenant. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord claims $632.50 for a move out clean, rubbish removal and garden work.
The landlord confirmed that the property has been relet and that the cleaning claimed for is the only cleaning carried out between the end of this tenancy and the new tenancy commencing. I have viewed the photos provided by the landlord of the premises at the end of the tenancy. The tenant is required to leave the premises “reasonably clean and tidy.” It is generally accepted that this reasonably clean and tidy standard, is a lower standard than might be expected for premises at the start of a new tenancy.
Having reviewed the photos, I consider that a reasonable fee to bring the premises to standard required is $300.00. The tenant is ordered to pay the landlord $300.00.
The landlord claims $402.50 for the removal of furniture from the property. This included a couch, table and a cabinet. The landlord says that these items were included in the chattel list for the property and that they had been damaged by the tenant. The new tenants did not consider them acceptable and in September 2023 they were removed.
No claim for compensation for damage to these items has been filed by the landlord. I do not know whether an insurance excess may have applied. In any event, the tenant is not liable for removal costs and the claim is dismissed. Tenant claims
I explained to the tenant that as the tenancy had ended many months ago, a claim for work orders was no longer relevant.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
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 says that the bathroom sink did not drain properly and that the shower leaked into the downstairs rooms.
The landlord was first advised of this on 4 April 2022.The landlord called a plumber who went to the property on 5 May 2022.The plumber’s invoice records that no leaks through the ceiling were found.
On 26 May 2022, the tenant issued the landlord with a 14 day breach notice relating to both the bathroom sink and leaking shower.
Approximately one month later a builder came and removed damaged pipe from the ceiling which partially repaired the issue, although the tenant says that there were still intermittent leaks.
The landlord said that some of the delays were as a result of time delays in dealing with the owner and the builders of the premises.
Following a further complaint by the tenant, a second plumber and it should be noted different plumber, attended at the premises a few days later and that plumber could not find any leaks.
Where a tenant complains to a landlord of a maintenance issue, the landlord should have a reasonable time within which to arrange for repairs. In this case the issue related to the sole bathroom at the premises. The tenant could not use the bathroom for 3 months. I do not consider 3 months to be a reasonable period to complete repairs.
I find that the landlord has 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 109 (2)(b) RTA requires any application for exemplary damages to be filed no later than 12 months after the commission of the unlawful act. The unlawful act occurred in 2022. The tenant application was submitted on 29 February 2024.The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The tenant sought compensation for her inability to use the bathroom for three months. This has caused a loss of amenity in her use of the premises. The weekly rent on these premises was 500.00. I consider that the weekly rental that can be assigned to the use of the bathroom is $100.00. The period where the bathroom could not be used equates to 12 weeks. The landlord is ordered to pay the tenant compensation of $1,200.00.
The tenant claims 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). The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
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.
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(1A).
For the reasons set out previously in this application the claim for exemplary damages is time barred pursuant to s.109(2)(b) RTA and I consider that the appropriate compensation for the bathroom leak has already been awarded.
The tenant said that her quiet enjoyment of the premises had been breached. She described what must have been a very frightening incident where she discovered a tenant from nearby premises inside her house. Whilst that must have been very concerning, the owner of the premises was not the owner of the premises where the intruder lived. The landlord carries no responsibility or liability in the circumstances as explained by the tenant.
Neither party has been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and I make not order for reimbursement of the filing fee or name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4823598 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 7, 83 Vodanovich Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4823598 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 7, 83 Vodanovich Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland

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