What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4922560?

The tribunal order states: North Island Community Services Limited T/A Propertyscouts Whangarei must

How much money was awarded in case 4922560?

Compensation: Reimburse Water Cost: $550.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $542.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4922560?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4922560?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11049571-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4922560?

The tribunal order states: North Island Community Services Limited T/A Propertyscouts Whangarei must

How much money was awarded in case 4922560?

Compensation: Reimburse Water Cost: $550.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $542.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4922560?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4922560?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11049571-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Finlayson Road, Matarau, RD 6, Whangarei 0176 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4922560 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4922560 — net $157.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$542.86		Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Reimburse water cost		$550.00	Reimburse water cost
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry		$150.00	Unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$563.30	$720.44
Net award		$157.14
Bond		$1,100.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$157.14

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4922560 — net $157.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$542.86		Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Reimburse water cost		$550.00	Reimburse water cost
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry		$150.00	Unlawful entry
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$563.30	$720.44
Net award		$157.14
Bond		$1,100.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$157.14

Order

North Island Community Services Limited T/A Propertyscouts Whangarei must pay Allan John Gray $157.14 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,100.00 (3514071) to Allan John Gray immediately.

Reasons

Background

The adjournment order dated 25 September 2024 sets out the background to the two applications.
The second hearing took place in Whangarei on 18 October 2024.
Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Barker represented the landlord. Tenant application Market rent
Mr Gray seeks refund of “overpaid” rent on the grounds that the weekly rent charged by the landlord, $950.00, is excessive.
The Tenancy Tribunal may make an order reducing the rent if the Tribunal is satisfied that the rent payable for a tenancy “exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount”. 1
Where it makes such an order, the Tribunal must: a. Specify the reduced amount of the rent. b. Specify the date from which the reduced rent amount applied / will apply. c. That date must be no earlier than the date of the Tenant’s application, and not later than 30 days after the date of the order. 2
Market rent is defined as: 3 The rent that, without regard to the personal circumstances of the landlord or the tenant, a willing landlord might reasonably expect to receive and a willing tenant might reasonably expect to pay for the tenancy taking into consideration the general level of rent for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities and such other matters as the Tribunal considers relevant
The Tribunal takes a two-stage approach to determining applications of this type: 4 a. Firstly, ascertaining the market rent for the premises. b. Secondly, determining whether the rent required by the landlord exceeds the rent by a “substantial amount”. The term 'substantial' is not defined in the RTA, but it is the opposite of ‘minor’ or ‘insignificant’. Some earlier Tribunal cases suggested a 'rule of thumb' of 10% over market rent. However, a rule of thumb based on a specific percentage has no legal status. . 1 Section 25(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 25(4) RTA 3 Section 25(3) RTA 4 Thai v Mahmood, DC Christchurch, CIV2003-009-2542
Per section 25(3) RTA (quoted above) the most relevant information is the “level of rent for comparable tenancies of comparable premises in the locality or in similar localities”, but the Tribunal may also take into account other matters that it considers relevant.
Mr Gray said that: a. At the time of his application, there were no other properties listed as available for rent on Trade Me in the Whangarei area with a weekly rent of $950.00 or above. b. The market value of this property is approximately $1m. There is a “direct correlation of almost 1 to 1” between the market value of a property and its market rent, and the rent of $950 is disproportionate to the value of the property.
I do not find Mr Gray’s argument based on the market value of the property convincing, on the grounds that: a. His statement that there is a “direct correlation of almost 1 to 1” between the market value of a home and its market rent requires evidence, and none was provided apart from some anecdotal information about the property he rented before this one, and the property that he purchased after the end of this tenancy. b. In terms of the property that he previously rented, Mr Gray said that it had a market value of $1.6m and he paid a rent of $650 per week. He said that the property he has purchased cost $1.8m and he received a verbal rent assessment of no more than $1,000 per week. If accurate, these figures call into question Mr Gray’s argument that there is a direct correlation between market value and market rent – the value to rent ratio of the two properties differs by 35%. In any event, a simple Google search shows that Mr Gray’s previous rental sold for $1.35m in May 2024, which calls into question the accuracy of Mr Gray’s figures.
Ms Skinner said that based on market information about properties in nearby areas, and “independent rental appraisals from Propertyscouts, Harcourts, and Quinovic”, she considered that the market rent excluding services was in the $800-$850 range.
Ms Skinner noted that there is very little data about similar properties in this area, which is a small township. Tenancy Services holds bond data for two nearby, slightly larger areas – Ruatangata West and Maungatapere. Ms Skinner described these areas as slightly less desirable than Matarau. The average upper quartile rent for a 3-bedroom property in Ruatangata is $725/wk and the upper quartile for a 4-bedroom property in Maungatapere is $760/wk.
Ms Skinner provided a statement from the owner that “the property is essentially $850pw plus $100 for maintenance of lawns, pool garden, and monthly maintenance for the bio cycle”.
Ms Skinner also emphasised the value of the services that are included in the rent, specifically lawn mowing, gardening, weed spraying, septic filter check, and pool maintenance. Ms Skinner said that Mr Gray also saved on water because the property is on tank supply.
Ms Skinner provided a table that helpfully sets out the actual cost to the owner of the lawn mowing, gardening, weed spraying, septic filter check and pool maintenance ver the period January to June 2024. The total cost was $6,749.14 over a period of 26 weeks, which is $259.58 per week.
However, I note that these figures include an invoice for $1,060.71 for weed spraying in March 2024, and invoice for $2,093.90 for the pool in February 2024.
It is reasonable for a landlord to charge additional rent if they are providing services that would otherwise be the tenant’s responsibility. However, the scope of the tenant’s legal responsibilities is governed by the Residential Tenancies Act, and a landlord cannot by agreement require the tenant to bear a cost or responsibility that falls to the landlord under the terms of the RTA.
Tenants must keep the gardens in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. They can be expected to keep ‘on top’ of weeds, but they are not expected to carry out a large scale weed removal exercise. I do not know what the invoice for over $1,000 for weed spraying in March involved, but it would appear to be beyond ‘routine’ maintenance weed spraying. Tenants can be expected to bear the usual costs of running the swimming pool and keeping it tidy. I was not provided with the details of the $2,093.90 pool invoice from February 2024, but again this is significantly beyond a standard servicing cost. Tenants are not expected to maintain the filter on a bio septic system, this cost properly falls to the landlord as part of their maintenance obligation.
Ms Skinner’s argument that the tenant’s “saving” on water rates should be taken into account also falls into this category. The property is not on a mains supply. It is the landlord’s obligation to provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water, 5 and there is no legal basis for the landlord to charge the tenant for collected rainwater.
In terms of the value of these additional services, Mr Gray noted that during his tenancy: a. The lawns were mowed four times during the four and half month tenancy. 5 Section 45(1)(ca) RTA b. The pool was serviced “at best” monthly.
I do not accept Ms Skinner’s assessment that the value of the services that Mr Gray received totalled $260/wk. However, Ms Skinner’s figures for the months of April, May, and June do support an average of $100 per week for combined ‘routine’ lawnmowing, pool servicing, gardening, and weed spraying.
On the evidence provided to me I am satisfied that: a. Having regard to the size and location of the property, a reasonable market rent is $800/wk. b. The value of the services that Mr Gray received was not more than $100/wk. c. The total market rent is $900.00 per week. d. The rent charged to Mr Gray, $950/wk, exceeds the market rent by approximately 5.5%. e. This does not, in my view, amount to exceeding the market rent by a “substantial amount”. The 10% ‘rule of thumb’ is not statutory, but it provides a useful guideline. In this instance the excess is well below 10%. f. This part of Mr Gray’s application is dismissed. Reimbursement of water charges
As noted above, the property is on tank water. Mr Gray’s tenancy began on 5 April 2024.
In May, the tank ran dry. This happened over a weekend. Mr Gray arranged for an urgent water delivery. Mr Gray seeks recovery of that cost from the landlord.
Where there is no reticulated water supply, the landlord must provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water.
The fact that Mr Gray ran out of water less than a month after moving in means that either: a. Mr Gray carelessly used a large amount of water; or b. There was a leak; or c. There was not an adequate amount of water in the tank at the start of the tenancy.
The only occupants of the house were Mr Gray, his wife, and his mother-in-law.
There is no evidence to suggest any large-scale water use by Mr Gray in April / May. Mr Gray did not water the gardens or fill the pool – the landlord was responsible for those things per the terms of the agreement.
There is no evidence of a leak.
The most plausible explanation is that there was not adequate water in the tank at the start of the tenancy.
That is the landlord’s responsibility.
Mr Gray is entitled to recover the cost of re-filling the tank in May. Reimbursement of power
Mr Gray said that: a. His power bills were very high during his tenancy. b. The pool pump seemed to run 24/7. c. He was overseas for a period of time during the tenancy. He noted that the power usage at the property increased markedly on the day that the contractor came to service the pool.
Tenants are liable for outgoings that they consume. 6 In the case of water, tenants are not liable to pay for the cost of water lost through a leak. There could be a power equivalent to a leak, in the case of some electrical defect at the property.
Mr Gray has the burden of proof.
The evidence available to me does not establish that there was any electrical that fault that caused excessive power use. Mr Gray is liable to pay for power that is reasonably used to maintain the pool. There is not sufficient evidence to prove any fault / malfunction with the pool pump.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Retaliatory notice
The landlord gave Mr Gray notice to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that they intended to put the premises on the market for sale.
Mr Gray questioned the timing and motivation for this notice.
However, after Mr Gray moved out the property was in fact put the market, and it has sold.
Therefore, I accept that the landlord’s termination notice was genuine and not retaliatory. 6 Section 39(3) RTA Quiet enjoyment
The concerns that Mr Gray raised under this heading relate to unlawful entry rather than quiet enjoyment.
Landlords may not enter the premises during the tenancy except: 7 a. In an emergency; or b. With the consent of the tenant, freely given before the entry; or c. For the purpose of maintenance and repair, having given appropriate notice prior to the entry.
Mr Gray said that the owner entered the premises unlawfully in May and July. Mr Gray had limited information about the May incident, and he focussed his submissions on the July incident.
Mr Gray said that: a. He received notice that a plumber was going to attend. b. The owner came to the property with the plumber. c. Only his mother-in-law was at home. She has limited English. d. The owner came inside the house and walked around.
Mr Gray sent Ms Skinner an email about this the next day, and Ms Skinner did not dispute Mr Gray’s version of events.
Ms Barker explained that there is a code for access to the property and the owner did not want to give the code to the contractor.
I accept that it was necessary for the owner to accompany the plumber to grant access, but only for the purpose of granting access. The notice only referred to the plumber, and it does not implicitly give a right for the owner to enter at the same time.
I am satisfied that the owner unlawfully entered the premises.
The Tenancy Tribunal can award exemplary damages of up to $1,500 if the landlord enters the premises unlawfully.
In this instance: a. I accept that the owner genuinely (but mistakenly) thought that she was entitled to enter the premises. b. The incident was unfortunate, but the impact on the tenant was relatively minimal.
It is appropriate to award exemplary damages at the low end of the scale. 7 Section 48 RTA
I will award $150.00. Maintenance
Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Mr Gray’s broad complaint about maintenance was that there were multiple issues identified in the entry inspection report that were not attended to during his tenancy.
Not all of the issues identified in the entry inspection report were intended to be remedied, such as areas of worn / threadbare carpet. The purpose of the report is to record the condition of the property at the beginning of the tenancy, not to generate a work order for repairs.
Some of the issues did need attending to, and some maintenance work was done during this brief tenancy.
The information provided to me does not prove any particular instance of the landlord failing to attend to a necessary repair within an acceptable timeframe.
This part of the claim is dismissed. Landlord application Rent arrears
This part of the landlord’s claim was not disputed. Damage to screen doors
Propertyscouts provided a video recording of the exit inspection showing damage to two exterior screen doors, consistent with dog scratches.
The damage is not noted on the entry inspection report. The entry video recording does not focus on the screen doors, but the person taking the video walks past the doors and does not note any damage. The same person identified the damage readily in the exit video.
The evidence is sufficient to establish, to the standard of ‘more likely than not’, that the damage occurred during Mr Gray’s tenancy.
The difficulty for the landlord’s claim is that they are unable to prove a loss.
The landlord did not repair or replace the doors. They sold the property. It is not obvious that minor scratches on the screen doors had any impact on the sale price of the property, in particular given that the doors and windows had other issues (loose handle, insulation seal coming out).
Because the landlord cannot prove a loss, this part of the landlord’s claim must be dismissed. Carpet cleaning
The claim seeks cleaning of the carpet in the garage / rumpus.
Mr Gray had professional carpet cleaning done at the end of the tenancy, but it appears that this part of the house was not done.
The landlord’s say that there was pet fur and urine on the carpet.
The landlord did not have photographs showing the condition of this carpet at the end of the tenancy.
There is a cat flap in the garage. Ms Barker acknowledged the possibility that a neighbourhood cat (or cats) could have got into the garage after the tenancy.
It is not proven that this damage occurred during Mr Gray’s tenancy and this part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Outcome, filing fee, bond
Both parties were partially successful in their applications, and I will award the filing fee to both parties.
The balance of the bond will be released to Mr Gray.
Propertyscouts is to pay Mr Gray $157.14..

Tenancy Tribunal case 4922560 — Exemplary damages at 24 Finlayson Road, Matarau, RD 6, Whangarei 0176

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4922560 — Exemplary damages at 24 Finlayson Road, Matarau, RD 6, Whangarei 0176

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