What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4909775?

The tribunal order states: Abby Lee Lawrence must pay A1 Property Managers Limited as agent for Kimetto

How much money was awarded in case 4909775?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $736.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $435.69 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $368.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $411.43 awarded to landlord; Walls And Ceilings: $1,702.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Batteries And Plug: $22.00 awarded to landlord; Waterblast Deck: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4909775?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4909775?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11313277-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4909775?

The tribunal order states: Abby Lee Lawrence must pay A1 Property Managers Limited as agent for Kimetto

How much money was awarded in case 4909775?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $736.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $435.69 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $368.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $411.43 awarded to landlord; Walls And Ceilings: $1,702.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Batteries And Plug: $22.00 awarded to landlord; Waterblast Deck: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4909775?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4909775?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11313277-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 101 Mackworth Street, Woolston, Woolston Tenancy Tribunal Case 4909775 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Unit/Flat 1, 101 Mackworth Street, Woolston, Woolston Tenancy Tribunal Case 4909775 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4909775 — net $1,715.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$411.43		Rent arrears
Cleaning	$736.00		Cleaning
Carpet cleaning	$100.00		Carpet cleaning
Repairs: walls and ceilings	$1,702.00		Repairs: walls and ceilings
Plumbing repair	$435.69		Plumbing repair
Repair blinds in upstairs bedroom	$368.00		Repair blinds in upstairs bedroom
Waterblast deck	$100.00		Waterblast deck
Garden work	$100.00		Garden work
Replace batteries and plug	$22.00		Replace batteries and plug
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation for loss of enjoyment		$500.00	Compensation for loss of enjoyment
Total award	$3,995.56	$500.00
Net award	$1,715.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,715.56

Claims and awards for application 4909775 — net $1,715.56 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $411.43
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Cleaning

Amount: $736.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Carpet cleaning

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet cleaning

Repairs: walls and ceilings

Amount: $1,702.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: walls and ceilings

Plumbing repair

Amount: $435.69
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Plumbing repair

Repair blinds in upstairs bedroom

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Compensation Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears

Order

Abby Lee Lawrence must pay A1 Property Managers Limited as agent for Kimetto Property Management Alana Morel $1,715.56 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,780.00 (6452551-001) to A1 Property Managers Limited as agent for Kimetto Property Management immediately.
The landlord’s application for the cost of lawn remediation is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for the cost of lock and key replacement is withdrawn.
The tenant’s application for work orders is withdrawn.
The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for compensation for a breach of her quiet enjoyment is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for compensation for high power costs is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 16 January 2025. Ms Morel and Ms Edwards represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages. The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation for the cost of repairs, cleaning and the replacement of batteries and a plug.
Both parties provided a large amount of documentary evidence including photos. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Background
The tenancy started on 16 June 2022. The landlord then was Venture Property Management Limited. A1 Property Management Limited (A1) took over the management of the tenancy (and became the landlord) in December 2022.
The tenancy ended on 2 July 2024, so it lasted just over 2 years.
The premises were newly built at the start of the tenancy. Ms Lawrence was the first tenant.
The premises are part of a 40-unit development. A1 manages tenancies in 20 on the units.
Ms Lawrence was unhappy with several aspects of the premises. She served several 14-day notices for repair and maintenance issues on the landlord towards the end of the tenancy.
Ms Lawrence believed she could give 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy. She was advised by the landlord that the required amount of time was 28 days. Nevertheless, she considers that the landlord agreed to release her from the tenancy on 22 June 2024.
Before the tenancy ended, Ms Lawrence made her application to the Tribunal. At that time, she sought work orders. She withdrew that application at the hearing. The Tribunal cannot make work orders on a tenancy that has ended.
I held a directions conference with the parties on 22 November 2024. Despite my clear direction for the tenant to set out a statement of her claims in a numbered order by 20 December 2024, she failed to do so. That meant that the Tribunal had to try and discern from her written application what she was seeking. She confirmed that the Tribunal’s understanding of her claims was correct. Issues
The Tribunal must determine these issues on the tenant’s application: •Should the tenancy end on 22 June 2024, rather than at the end of the 28- day written notice period? •Did the premises comply with the Health Homes Standards (HHS)? •Did the landlord fail to maintain and repair the premises? •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation for higher power bills? •Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
The Tribunal must determine these issues on the landlord’s application: •Does the tenant owe rent arrears? •Did the tenant fail to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition? •Did the tenant damage the premises, either intentionally or carelessly, and if so, has the landlord proved claims for the cost of repairs? •Is the tenant liable for the cost of re-seeding the lawn? •Is the tenant liable for the cost of missing batteries and a plug? Relevant legal considerations Tenant responsibilities
At the end of a tenancy a 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 (RTA).
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. Landlord responsibilities
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. It provides in part: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; and (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes; and (ba) comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A; and (bb) comply with the healthy homes standards; and... Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
In Birch the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. Analysis
First, I will address the tenant’s claims.

When should the tenancy end?

I will address the issue of when the tenancy should end when I address the landlord’s application for rent arrears. Did the premises comply with the Health Homes Standards (HHS)?
The landlord produced in evidence a HHS report from the start of the tenancy that shows the premises were HHS compliant save for the amount of insulation in the ceiling, an issue that was promptly remediated.
The tenant relies on an assessment by a Christchurch City Council Environmental health officer following an inspection on 5 September 2023. The report notes some defects with the property. But it is not a HHS assessment nor was it intended to be; it was a health inspection. The assessor specifically noted that the house was free of mould, no draught was noticed (it was a warm fine day) but that the backyard appeared muddy and damp with little grass.
The landlord had the external drain waste assessed on 14 November 2024 by a registered drainlayer (report produced). The drainlayer states there were no problems; the drains were operating as expected and discharged into small soak pits and were meant for drips.
In the absence of a competing HHS assessment, the Tribunal finds that the premises were HHS compliant. The tenant has not proved that the landlord has committed any unlawful act. The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to maintain and repair the premises?

The tenant issued several 14-day repair notices dated 14 April 2024. Some allege breaches of the HHS; one refers to a possible threat from the shower door breaking because she had been told that other shower doors at other units had shattered; one mentioned the outdoor light flickering which she said was an electrical hazard; one referred to the original tenancy agreement not having a tick beside the ceiling insulation declaration; one required the installation of thermal curtains; and one referred to the carpets lifting away from the tread grip.
Being newly built, the premises had a guarantee. The landlord produced evidence from the developer that the remediation work was put on hold due to the methamphetamine contamination issue; it was considered a health and safety hazard for the contractors. That related to paintwork but also to the carpets coming loose from the tread grip.
Ms Lawrence detailed many complaints in her evidence. They included the presence of mould on the carpet grips and skirting boards; the grass being wet and unusable; the shower door leaking and not sealing; the landlord’s refusal to alter the position of the heat pump; a faulty thermostat on the hot water cylinder; and what she referred to as a fire in the meter box. She said there was no ventilation in the laundry and there was a leak through the upstairs bathroom floor into the downstairs toilet. Finally, she referred to a cracked hob in the kitchen.
The photos produced in evidence show that Ms Lawrence pulled back areas of carpet to take photos. It is obvious that that worsened the carpets detaching from the tread grip (also known as smooth edge).
Ms Lawrence believes that there was a previous leak upstairs that contributed to mould, but Ms Morel said there had been no previous issues. Ms Lawrence was the first tenant in a newly built unit. She said the damage to the hob was tenant damage. And she noted that there was no requirement for laundry ventilation; the laundry was in a cubby area.
Any issues that arose between Ms Lawrence and her previous landlord are not the subject of this application. She referred to a leak from Unit 2 into her unit early in the tenancy, but no evidence of what occurred, when it occurred, and what happened was provided.
Ms Morel produced invoices following repair work completed by the landlord. Generally, I am satisfied that the landlord met its repair and maintenance responsibilities.
The fact that incidents such as the meter box incident, or the hot water cylinder thermostat failure occur does not establish a landlord breach; it is the landlord’s response that the Tribunal focuses on. The landlord took appropriate action acting on the advice of Orion NZ when notified by Fire and Emergency NZ of the meter box issue. Electrical breakers had to be replaced and were. A compliance certificate was issued.
I am prepared to find that the tenant suffered some loss of enjoyment of the tenancy because of the carpets detaching from the tread grips, resulting on one occasion in a small abrasion injury to her daughter. And even if the damage to the hob was her fault (the landlord has not claimed for that) the landlord should have had it assessed and repaired. The evidence does not show that all the hob elements were unsafe to use, but Ms Lawrence was concerned nevertheless, and stopped using it. The period involved (a relevant factor for compensation) was limited.
Her believe about the incorrect placement of the heat pump is not supported by any objective evidence; it complied with the HHS. The landlord was not required to supply thermal curtains.
So, while there were some inconveniences that are not unusual in newly built premises, I find that Ms Lawrence is entitled to minimal compensation only. I award her $500.00.

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation for higher power bills?

The tenant seeks compensations – she thought $500.00 would be fair over 2 years – for what she says were higher power bills due to draughts, an incorrectly positioned heat pump, and a faulty hot water cylinder switch.
Although the tenant considers that the heat pump was wrongly placed, the evidence does not show any breach by the landlord. The premises were HHS compliant. The HHS report specifically states that ‘the existing qualifying heater exceeds the required heating capacity’. Without a proven HHS breach there is no basis for an award of compensation.
The landlord considered the tenant’s belief that her power bills were too high. It asked for copies of some of her power bills (produced). The accounts show nothing unusual, just the expected seasonal variations. Other than the tenant’s belief that she was incurring high power bills, there is no objective evidence that high costs (if they were high) were due to any breach by the landlord.
But even if the tenant did incur higher power costs, there is simply no reliable basis on which the Tribunal could assess compensation. A ‘guesstimate’ is not sufficient. I dismiss this part of the application.
The same applies to the allegation that the premises were draughty. The premises were HHS compliant. The landlord met its responsibilities. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
This claim arises from methamphetamine tests the landlord carried out at the premises. There was a negative test at the start of the tenancy (the premises being newly built). A test on or about 8 November 2023 showed a positive methamphetamine test and resulted in an earlier application to the Tribunal. The amounts detected were below the threshold for the premises to be considered damaged. But the Tribunal recorded the tenant’s agreement that her former partner, not she, used methamphetamine at the premises.
The landlord arranged for another test to be done but there were delays obtaining the tenant’s agreement. When it was done, the test kit was out of date, so the test had to be rescheduled for 24 May 2024.
Th tests the landlord commissioned were reasonable in the circumstances. The owner was well within their rights to have the premises tested again following a positive methamphetamine result. There were insurance implications for the landlord.
I dismiss the tenant’s application for compensation for a breach of her quiet enjoyment. There was none.
Now, I will address the landlord’s claims.

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

A tenant is required to give 28 days’ written notice to terminate a tenancy. Ms Lawrence did not give that period of notice. She said the landlord agreed to release her early. It did not. The landlord simply advised her that if the scheduled meth testing could be brought forward it might have been able to release her from the tenancy earlier. But that did not happen.
The landlord has proved a claim for rent arrears to the end of the 28-day notice period. I find the claim for rent proved in the amount of $411.43. Did the tenant fail to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition?
The landlord produced photos and inspection reports from the start and end of the tenancy.
The Tribunal assesses claims for cleaning on an objective basis, not on the subjective basis of either party.
The landlord’s evidence proves the claims for cleaning, carpet cleaning and for the water blasting of the deck. The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Did the tenant damage the premises, either intentionally or carelessly, and if so, has the landlord proved claims for the cost of repairs?
I find that the tenant caused damage to walls and a ceiling as well as damage to plumbing caused by what appear to be toy parts and/or bottle tops. The plumbing repair required a section of ceiling near the front door to be removed.
The tenant said that area was the same area damaged by flooding from the bathroom. Ms Morel confirmed it was not.
The tenant also caused damage to blinds which had to be replaced. She said the blinds ‘melted’ to the window and produced an email informing the landlord of that.
I find that this damage was beyond fair wear and tear. It was at least careless damage, and the tenant is responsible for the repair cost, proved by the invoices produced in evidence.
Ms Morel said she was careful to distinguish repairs required by the developers of the unit complex under the guarantee (such as to the carpets detaching, and paint repairs due to cracking) from the damage caused by the tenant. I accept that.

Is the tenant liable for the cost of re-seeding the lawn?

The photos produced in evidence show that the lawn was in excellent condition when the tenancy started. At the end of the tenancy, it was mostly dead and otherwise in a poor condition.
The photos the tenant produced show problems with the lawn as early as November 2022. The Christchurch City Council assessor also refers to the lawn being mostly absent and the backyard as muddy and damp. He thought that the drain was simply discharging to the ground. The landlord’s assessor said the drain was operating as intended; it was essentially an overflow for drips.
Lawns newly laid can be problematic. They often require special care.
The tenant said she thought the lawn had a disease, like the lawn at the next- door unit. She said she had never had an issue with lawns at her other tenancies.
I am unable to find that the tenant carelessly or intentionally damaged the lawn. I find that this is a repair cost properly borne by the owner/landlord.
However, I award the landlord compensation of $100.00 for garden work required. The gardens at the start of the tenancy were in good condition. The tenant did not leave them reasonably tidy.

Is the tenant liable for the cost of missing batteries and a plug?

I find this claim proved. The batteries were for the operation of the front door. Ms Lawrence said she took them. The kitchen plug was missing. Result
The tenant’s application for compensation is allowed in the amount of $500.00 only. The rest of her claims are dismissed.
The landlord’s application is successful save for the cost of re-seeding the lawn.
The bond will be paid to the landlord. Allowing for the deduction of the bond, the tenant will pay the landlord $1,715.56. Name suppression
The tenant sought a name suppression order. As her application is mostly unsuccessful, she is not entitled to name suppression – see section 95A RTA.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4909775 — net $1,715.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$411.43		Rent arrears
Cleaning	$736.00		Cleaning
Carpet cleaning	$100.00		Carpet cleaning
Repairs: walls and ceilings	$1,702.00		Repairs: walls and ceilings
Plumbing repair	$435.69		Plumbing repair
Repair blinds in upstairs bedroom	$368.00		Repair blinds in upstairs bedroom
Waterblast deck	$100.00		Waterblast deck
Garden work	$100.00		Garden work
Replace batteries and plug	$22.00		Replace batteries and plug
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation for loss of enjoyment		$500.00	Compensation for loss of enjoyment
Total award	$3,995.56	$500.00
Net award	$1,715.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,715.56

Claims and awards for application 4909775 — net $1,715.56 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $411.43
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Cleaning

Amount: $736.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Carpet cleaning

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet cleaning

Repairs: walls and ceilings

Amount: $1,702.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: walls and ceilings

Plumbing repair

Amount: $435.69
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Plumbing repair

Repair blinds in upstairs bedroom

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Compensation Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears

Order

Abby Lee Lawrence must pay A1 Property Managers Limited as agent for Kimetto Property Management Alana Morel $1,715.56 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,780.00 (6452551-001) to A1 Property Managers Limited as agent for Kimetto Property Management immediately.
The landlord’s application for the cost of lawn remediation is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for the cost of lock and key replacement is withdrawn.
The tenant’s application for work orders is withdrawn.
The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for compensation for a breach of her quiet enjoyment is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for compensation for high power costs is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 16 January 2025. Ms Morel and Ms Edwards represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages. The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation for the cost of repairs, cleaning and the replacement of batteries and a plug.
Both parties provided a large amount of documentary evidence including photos. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Background
The tenancy started on 16 June 2022. The landlord then was Venture Property Management Limited. A1 Property Management Limited (A1) took over the management of the tenancy (and became the landlord) in December 2022.
The tenancy ended on 2 July 2024, so it lasted just over 2 years.
The premises were newly built at the start of the tenancy. Ms Lawrence was the first tenant.
The premises are part of a 40-unit development. A1 manages tenancies in 20 on the units.
Ms Lawrence was unhappy with several aspects of the premises. She served several 14-day notices for repair and maintenance issues on the landlord towards the end of the tenancy.
Ms Lawrence believed she could give 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy. She was advised by the landlord that the required amount of time was 28 days. Nevertheless, she considers that the landlord agreed to release her from the tenancy on 22 June 2024.
Before the tenancy ended, Ms Lawrence made her application to the Tribunal. At that time, she sought work orders. She withdrew that application at the hearing. The Tribunal cannot make work orders on a tenancy that has ended.
I held a directions conference with the parties on 22 November 2024. Despite my clear direction for the tenant to set out a statement of her claims in a numbered order by 20 December 2024, she failed to do so. That meant that the Tribunal had to try and discern from her written application what she was seeking. She confirmed that the Tribunal’s understanding of her claims was correct. Issues
The Tribunal must determine these issues on the tenant’s application: •Should the tenancy end on 22 June 2024, rather than at the end of the 28- day written notice period? •Did the premises comply with the Health Homes Standards (HHS)? •Did the landlord fail to maintain and repair the premises? •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation for higher power bills? •Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
The Tribunal must determine these issues on the landlord’s application: •Does the tenant owe rent arrears? •Did the tenant fail to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition? •Did the tenant damage the premises, either intentionally or carelessly, and if so, has the landlord proved claims for the cost of repairs? •Is the tenant liable for the cost of re-seeding the lawn? •Is the tenant liable for the cost of missing batteries and a plug? Relevant legal considerations Tenant responsibilities
At the end of a tenancy a 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 (RTA).
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. Landlord responsibilities
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. It provides in part: 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; and (b) provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes; and (ba) comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A; and (bb) comply with the healthy homes standards; and... Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
In Birch the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest. Analysis
First, I will address the tenant’s claims.

When should the tenancy end?

I will address the issue of when the tenancy should end when I address the landlord’s application for rent arrears. Did the premises comply with the Health Homes Standards (HHS)?
The landlord produced in evidence a HHS report from the start of the tenancy that shows the premises were HHS compliant save for the amount of insulation in the ceiling, an issue that was promptly remediated.
The tenant relies on an assessment by a Christchurch City Council Environmental health officer following an inspection on 5 September 2023. The report notes some defects with the property. But it is not a HHS assessment nor was it intended to be; it was a health inspection. The assessor specifically noted that the house was free of mould, no draught was noticed (it was a warm fine day) but that the backyard appeared muddy and damp with little grass.
The landlord had the external drain waste assessed on 14 November 2024 by a registered drainlayer (report produced). The drainlayer states there were no problems; the drains were operating as expected and discharged into small soak pits and were meant for drips.
In the absence of a competing HHS assessment, the Tribunal finds that the premises were HHS compliant. The tenant has not proved that the landlord has committed any unlawful act. The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to maintain and repair the premises?

The tenant issued several 14-day repair notices dated 14 April 2024. Some allege breaches of the HHS; one refers to a possible threat from the shower door breaking because she had been told that other shower doors at other units had shattered; one mentioned the outdoor light flickering which she said was an electrical hazard; one referred to the original tenancy agreement not having a tick beside the ceiling insulation declaration; one required the installation of thermal curtains; and one referred to the carpets lifting away from the tread grip.
Being newly built, the premises had a guarantee. The landlord produced evidence from the developer that the remediation work was put on hold due to the methamphetamine contamination issue; it was considered a health and safety hazard for the contractors. That related to paintwork but also to the carpets coming loose from the tread grip.
Ms Lawrence detailed many complaints in her evidence. They included the presence of mould on the carpet grips and skirting boards; the grass being wet and unusable; the shower door leaking and not sealing; the landlord’s refusal to alter the position of the heat pump; a faulty thermostat on the hot water cylinder; and what she referred to as a fire in the meter box. She said there was no ventilation in the laundry and there was a leak through the upstairs bathroom floor into the downstairs toilet. Finally, she referred to a cracked hob in the kitchen.
The photos produced in evidence show that Ms Lawrence pulled back areas of carpet to take photos. It is obvious that that worsened the carpets detaching from the tread grip (also known as smooth edge).
Ms Lawrence believes that there was a previous leak upstairs that contributed to mould, but Ms Morel said there had been no previous issues. Ms Lawrence was the first tenant in a newly built unit. She said the damage to the hob was tenant damage. And she noted that there was no requirement for laundry ventilation; the laundry was in a cubby area.
Any issues that arose between Ms Lawrence and her previous landlord are not the subject of this application. She referred to a leak from Unit 2 into her unit early in the tenancy, but no evidence of what occurred, when it occurred, and what happened was provided.
Ms Morel produced invoices following repair work completed by the landlord. Generally, I am satisfied that the landlord met its repair and maintenance responsibilities.
The fact that incidents such as the meter box incident, or the hot water cylinder thermostat failure occur does not establish a landlord breach; it is the landlord’s response that the Tribunal focuses on. The landlord took appropriate action acting on the advice of Orion NZ when notified by Fire and Emergency NZ of the meter box issue. Electrical breakers had to be replaced and were. A compliance certificate was issued.
I am prepared to find that the tenant suffered some loss of enjoyment of the tenancy because of the carpets detaching from the tread grips, resulting on one occasion in a small abrasion injury to her daughter. And even if the damage to the hob was her fault (the landlord has not claimed for that) the landlord should have had it assessed and repaired. The evidence does not show that all the hob elements were unsafe to use, but Ms Lawrence was concerned nevertheless, and stopped using it. The period involved (a relevant factor for compensation) was limited.
Her believe about the incorrect placement of the heat pump is not supported by any objective evidence; it complied with the HHS. The landlord was not required to supply thermal curtains.
So, while there were some inconveniences that are not unusual in newly built premises, I find that Ms Lawrence is entitled to minimal compensation only. I award her $500.00.

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation for higher power bills?

The tenant seeks compensations – she thought $500.00 would be fair over 2 years – for what she says were higher power bills due to draughts, an incorrectly positioned heat pump, and a faulty hot water cylinder switch.
Although the tenant considers that the heat pump was wrongly placed, the evidence does not show any breach by the landlord. The premises were HHS compliant. The HHS report specifically states that ‘the existing qualifying heater exceeds the required heating capacity’. Without a proven HHS breach there is no basis for an award of compensation.
The landlord considered the tenant’s belief that her power bills were too high. It asked for copies of some of her power bills (produced). The accounts show nothing unusual, just the expected seasonal variations. Other than the tenant’s belief that she was incurring high power bills, there is no objective evidence that high costs (if they were high) were due to any breach by the landlord.
But even if the tenant did incur higher power costs, there is simply no reliable basis on which the Tribunal could assess compensation. A ‘guesstimate’ is not sufficient. I dismiss this part of the application.
The same applies to the allegation that the premises were draughty. The premises were HHS compliant. The landlord met its responsibilities. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
This claim arises from methamphetamine tests the landlord carried out at the premises. There was a negative test at the start of the tenancy (the premises being newly built). A test on or about 8 November 2023 showed a positive methamphetamine test and resulted in an earlier application to the Tribunal. The amounts detected were below the threshold for the premises to be considered damaged. But the Tribunal recorded the tenant’s agreement that her former partner, not she, used methamphetamine at the premises.
The landlord arranged for another test to be done but there were delays obtaining the tenant’s agreement. When it was done, the test kit was out of date, so the test had to be rescheduled for 24 May 2024.
Th tests the landlord commissioned were reasonable in the circumstances. The owner was well within their rights to have the premises tested again following a positive methamphetamine result. There were insurance implications for the landlord.
I dismiss the tenant’s application for compensation for a breach of her quiet enjoyment. There was none.
Now, I will address the landlord’s claims.

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

A tenant is required to give 28 days’ written notice to terminate a tenancy. Ms Lawrence did not give that period of notice. She said the landlord agreed to release her early. It did not. The landlord simply advised her that if the scheduled meth testing could be brought forward it might have been able to release her from the tenancy earlier. But that did not happen.
The landlord has proved a claim for rent arrears to the end of the 28-day notice period. I find the claim for rent proved in the amount of $411.43. Did the tenant fail to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition?
The landlord produced photos and inspection reports from the start and end of the tenancy.
The Tribunal assesses claims for cleaning on an objective basis, not on the subjective basis of either party.
The landlord’s evidence proves the claims for cleaning, carpet cleaning and for the water blasting of the deck. The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Did the tenant damage the premises, either intentionally or carelessly, and if so, has the landlord proved claims for the cost of repairs?
I find that the tenant caused damage to walls and a ceiling as well as damage to plumbing caused by what appear to be toy parts and/or bottle tops. The plumbing repair required a section of ceiling near the front door to be removed.
The tenant said that area was the same area damaged by flooding from the bathroom. Ms Morel confirmed it was not.
The tenant also caused damage to blinds which had to be replaced. She said the blinds ‘melted’ to the window and produced an email informing the landlord of that.
I find that this damage was beyond fair wear and tear. It was at least careless damage, and the tenant is responsible for the repair cost, proved by the invoices produced in evidence.
Ms Morel said she was careful to distinguish repairs required by the developers of the unit complex under the guarantee (such as to the carpets detaching, and paint repairs due to cracking) from the damage caused by the tenant. I accept that.

Is the tenant liable for the cost of re-seeding the lawn?

The photos produced in evidence show that the lawn was in excellent condition when the tenancy started. At the end of the tenancy, it was mostly dead and otherwise in a poor condition.
The photos the tenant produced show problems with the lawn as early as November 2022. The Christchurch City Council assessor also refers to the lawn being mostly absent and the backyard as muddy and damp. He thought that the drain was simply discharging to the ground. The landlord’s assessor said the drain was operating as intended; it was essentially an overflow for drips.
Lawns newly laid can be problematic. They often require special care.
The tenant said she thought the lawn had a disease, like the lawn at the next- door unit. She said she had never had an issue with lawns at her other tenancies.
I am unable to find that the tenant carelessly or intentionally damaged the lawn. I find that this is a repair cost properly borne by the owner/landlord.
However, I award the landlord compensation of $100.00 for garden work required. The gardens at the start of the tenancy were in good condition. The tenant did not leave them reasonably tidy.

Is the tenant liable for the cost of missing batteries and a plug?

I find this claim proved. The batteries were for the operation of the front door. Ms Lawrence said she took them. The kitchen plug was missing. Result
The tenant’s application for compensation is allowed in the amount of $500.00 only. The rest of her claims are dismissed.
The landlord’s application is successful save for the cost of re-seeding the lawn.
The bond will be paid to the landlord. Allowing for the deduction of the bond, the tenant will pay the landlord $1,715.56. Name suppression
The tenant sought a name suppression order. As her application is mostly unsuccessful, she is not entitled to name suppression – see section 95A RTA.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4909775 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 101 Mackworth Street, Woolston, Woolston

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4909775 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 101 Mackworth Street, Woolston, Woolston

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

When should the tenancy end?

Did the landlord fail to maintain and repair the premises?

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation for higher power bills?

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

Is the tenant liable for the cost of re-seeding the lawn?

Is the tenant liable for the cost of missing batteries and a plug?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

When should the tenancy end?

Did the landlord fail to maintain and repair the premises?

Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation for higher power bills?

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

Is the tenant liable for the cost of re-seeding the lawn?

Is the tenant liable for the cost of missing batteries and a plug?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions