What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4894580?

The tribunal order states: Riaan Cronje must pay NMG Farming Limited $511.44 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4894580?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $141.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4894580?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4894580?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10785022-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4894580?

The tribunal order states: Riaan Cronje must pay NMG Farming Limited $511.44 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4894580?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $141.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4894580?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4894580?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10785022-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

25 Ngaire Street South, Longburn, Palmerston North 4477 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4894580 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4894580 — net $511.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$141.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$350.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$511.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$511.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4894580 — net $511.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$141.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$350.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$511.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$511.44

Order

Riaan Cronje must pay NMG Farming Limited $511.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Lock/key replacement$141.00 Rubbish removal$350.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$511.44 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$511.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant’s application was for compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s: a. Failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises. See section 45 (1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). b. Breach of the Healthy Homes Standards (“HHS”) in relation to moisture ingress and drainage. See section 45(1)(bb) RTA. c. Breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and unlawful entry. See sections 38(1) and 48(4) RTA.
The landlord’s application was for compensation for the removal of rubbish and replacement of locks and keys at the end of the tenancy. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, each party must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. I have considered each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, I have considered all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I have weighed this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts, videos and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, I have referred in this Order only to the most relevant or important evidence.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
Section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires the Tribunal to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined each parties’ claims with this requirement in mind. Tenant’s claim: failure to maintain and repair
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its 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.
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) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement records in clause 2.20 the tenant’s agreement that “at the commencement of this Agreement, the accommodation provided is in a clean and tidy condition.”
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to maintain the premises by: a. Not emptying the septic tank. b. Not replacing the water filter.
The tenant gave evidence that on 20 February 2024 he notified the landlord at their daily morning employment meeting that the sewage pipe had blocked.
The landlord gave evidence that he told the tenant to clear the sewage pipe with a hose and that the tenant confirmed to him the next morning that the issue was fixed.
The tenant advised and provided photographic evidence that on 6 March 2024 the sewage overflowed and went under the house. The tenant notified the landlord that the problem had recurred and that two weeks’ later the landlord had the septic tank emptied and the problem was fixed. The tenant advised that he had complained of the issue on a daily basis at the employment meetings and that the septic tank was not emptied until two weeks after his complaint on 6 March 2024.
The landlord gave evidence that he was not notified of any ongoing problems with the toilet or sewage until it overflowed. He advised that he drove past the property on a daily basis and did not see any evidence of the sewage overflow. The landlord advised that its contractor could not attend on the day the tenant notified him of the issue on 6 March 2024 but that the septic tank was cleared the next morning.
The tenant did not produce any supporting evidence of having complained repeatedly to the landlord of what would have been a serious issue. The Tribunal is not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has failed to have this issue remedied within a reasonable timeframe. On the evidence before the Tribunal, the landlord has responded promptly and appropriately when the tenant has notified it of this issue.
The tenant’s claim in relation to the septic tank and sewage issue is dismissed.
The tenant gave evidence and produced photographs that the filter to the pump became clogged and required cleaning or replacement. He explained that the water for the property came from a bore and that it was sandy. He gave evidence that the sand would clog up the shower head and the pipes to the dishwasher and that this would happen almost daily. The principal result of the filter filling up was that water pressure would drop significantly. He advised that he regularly complained to the landlord that the filter needed replacement every three months, but that it was only replaced once during his tenancy.
The landlord advised that he had lived in the premises prior to the tenant. He explained that the water quality was very high and that it satisfied its dairy company. He acknowledged that the filter became clogged but that all that was needed was that it be washed out and it would operate again effectively. He acknowledged that the tenant had complained about the filter at a morning employment meeting. He advised that he could not find a replacement online and explained to the tenant that all that he needed to do was wash it out. He denied that blockages occurred daily and that all that was required was that the tenant cleaned it out every two months. He advised that other than the single enquiry from the tenant, he did not hear any other complaint and had assumed that there was no issue.
The tenant maintained that he raised this issue with the landlord on a daily basis at the employment meetings. The tenant had no evidence of ever giving the landlord written notice by text or email. He advised that he gave up complaining and just cleaned the filter.
The Tribunal is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities and on the evidence before it that the landlord has breached its obligation to maintain in relation to the water filter. The tenant’s claim is dismissed.
The tenant’s claims for these breaches have been unsupported by evidence of any email or text messaging. Where a tenant believes a landlord remains in breach of its obligations, especially in relation to such fundamental matters as water and sewage, it would be prudent to record complaints by sending emails or texts or by issuing a formal written notice requiring the landlord to remedy its breaches. In the absence of such evidence and with the denial of the landlord, it is difficult for the tenant to persuade the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has received repeated notice of such serious breaches requiring remedy. Tenant’s claim: breach of HHS
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.
The tenant’s evidence supported by photographs was that the bathroom floor was soft and spongey, that a wall beside the toilet in the bathroom was water damaged and that there was mould growing in the bathroom. The tenant complained that the floor felt unsafe and that because of the mould he and his family would not walk on it in bare feet. The tenant believes that there was a water leak from under the house and around the toilet.
The tenant provided an email from a cleaner who came to give a quote to clean the house at the end of the tenancy. Her opinion is: “I came across some dire concerns with the bathroom. I could clearly see there was some significant long term water damage in the bathroom area. I observed staining from previous mould that has to have been there for a long time to leave a stain. Obvious signs of rot in the floor boards, (I could feel the spongy texture when I walked on it) and visibly see the damage from the dampness on the exposed floor where the floor covering has rotted away. The discolouration on top of the floor covering would indicate moisture coming up from underneath, and would more than likely mean the whole floor under the surface is covered completely in mould, and likely has extensive rot. I can see some pink mould growing, which indicates living bacteria breeding in it, and more worryingly, I can see a lot of wet black mould. It is evident this has been progressing for years and, in my opinion, is coming from a leak in the structure, not within the room itself. In my opinion I wouldn't call this bathroom safe for people to use, as the extensive visible damage would suggest the floor could give way, and the air in that area would be toxic and harmful. I am not an expert in mould, but through cleaning some extensively damaged houses over the past 10 years, I feel like this opinion should be taken seriously and urgently.”
There is no evidence of this person’s professional qualifications, other than that she has been a cleaner for 10 years. She admits that she is “not an expert in mould”, gives no reason for her assumption regarding the source of the moisture or her beliefs that the “floor could give way and the air in that area would be toxic and harmful.” This is little more than opinion and confirmation that there was mould in the bathroom and that the floor had been damaged by water. It does not establish objectively or scientifically that the state of the bathroom constituted a hazard that required the landlord’s immediate attention.
The tenant gave evidence that he verbally complained about the state of the floor regularly. He did not produce evidence of any contemporaneous communication with the landlord such as an email or text about this issue.
The landlord acknowledged that he knew the bathroom flooring was soft but advised that it did not smell. His knowledge came from living in the property prior to this tenancy. He accepted that the bathroom floor was soft and the tiles discoloured. He denied receiving any complaints from the tenant during the tenancy about the state of the floor until the tenant filed his application with the Tribunal.
He explained that a plumber had inspected the bathroom prior to the tenancy and that the plumber advised that it was caused by the guttering. On this plumber’s recommendation an additional downpipe was installed. The landlord explained that after the tenancy ended, another plumber discovered that there was in fact a leak from the shower and that the flooring had now been replaced.
The landlord advised that the tenant was aware of the state of the flooring at the start of the tenancy and that the very low rental of $250.00 was set to reflect this.
The tenant has produced photographs of mould in the bathroom. It would be rare for any bathroom not to have evidence of some mould at some time. Bathrooms are by their nature warm and moist. They produce ideal conditions for mould to grow. Simply having mould in the premises is not sufficient to establish a breach on the part of the landlord for which compensation can be ordered. The tenant needed to show that there was mould in the bathroom at a more extensive level than would otherwise be reasonably expected in a dwelling that meets the required building standards. The fact that some mould was in the house is not enough to show that it was not in a reasonable state of repair and the opinion of unqualified persons is often not persuasive.
As explained at the hearing, it is more appropriate that this claim by the tenant be dealt with as a failure to maintain. 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. There is no evidence before the Tribunal which could lead it to conclude on the balance of probabilities that the issue with the flooring was caused by a breach of the moisture ingress and drainage standard. A claim for a breach of the HHS in relation to moisture ingress and drainage must fail.
It is clear on the evidence of both parties that the bathroom floor was far from perfect. However, the tenant has not shown that the landlord was in breach of any of its obligations under the HHS or RTA.
In any event, even if the Tribunal found that the tenant had established a breach, the rent was set at such a low level that the Tribunal would be unlikely to award compensation on these facts.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Tenant’s claim: breach of quiet enjoyment and unlawful entry
The tenant claims the landlord entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claimed that the landlord came to the premises at 7 am on 2 February 2024 and knocked on the door asking to see the tenant and discuss the fact that the tenant had other persons move into the property without his knowledge or consent. The landlord did not enter the house property.
The landlord acknowledged that he went to the house property to see the tenant but gave evidence supported by another person that it was after 8 am.
As the landlord did not enter the house property and remained outside and was at the property for a legitimate purpose, the landlord has not unlawfully entered the property. The tenant’s claim for unlawful entry is dismissed.
For the same reasons, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the landlord interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises, nor has the landlord harassed the tenant by coming to the property for a legitimate purpose. The tenant’s claim for a breach of his quiet enjoyment is dismissed. The landlord’s claims
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all rubbish and return all keys. See section 40(1)(e)(iii)-(iv) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant left behind bags of domestic rubbish and an old lounge suite.
The tenant advised that he was allowed to put his rubbish bags in a skip bin paid for by the landlord. He explained that the bin was full and the bags could not be disposed of.
The landlord’s response was that the skip bin was emptied monthly and produced an invoice clearly showing that this was the service provided by its contractor. He advised that he allowed the tenant to use the bin as a courtesy but had no legal obligation to do so. The landlord explained that he had had to dispose of the tenant’s rubbish at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant confirmed that he did not require the lounge suite and that he had been unable to have it removed from the property.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant did not discharge his obligation to remove his rubbish and the lounge suite at the end of the tenancy and that the modest amount claimed by the landlord is fair and reasonable.
The tenant accepted that keys were lost during the tenancy and so could not be returned at its end.
It is appropriate that the landlord replaced the relevant locks and the amount claimed is fair and reasonable.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded in its claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4894580 — Property damage at 25 Ngaire Street South, Longburn, Palmerston North 4477

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4894580 — Property damage at 25 Ngaire Street South, Longburn, Palmerston North 4477

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions