What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4953614?

The tribunal order states: Ashleigh Bailey must pay Teng Chow Bernard Lum $3,203.49 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4953614?

Compensation: Plumbing Expenses: $172.50 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,074.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $697.61 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $47.38 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4953614?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4953614?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11005765-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4953614?

The tribunal order states: Ashleigh Bailey must pay Teng Chow Bernard Lum $3,203.49 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4953614?

Compensation: Plumbing Expenses: $172.50 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,074.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $697.61 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $47.38 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4953614?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4953614?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11005765-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1B Borris Close, East Tamaki, Auckland 2016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4953614 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4953614 — net $3,203.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 6 August 2024	$5,074.00		Rent arrears to 6 August 2024
Water rates	$47.38		Water rates
Window repairs	$250.00		Window repairs
Rubbish removal	$697.61		Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Plumbing expenses		$172.50	Plumbing expenses
Total award	$6,095.99	$172.50
Net award	$3,203.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,203.49

Order

Ashleigh Bailey must pay Teng Chow Bernard Lum $3,203.49 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
The tenant’s application for suppression is refused.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video conference.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for reimbursement for plumbing costs and compensation for the unsatisfactory condition of the premises. The Landlord’s Application Rent
The landlord claims $5,074 rent arrears to 6 August 2024. He provided rent records supporting the rent payable to that date. The tenant did not seriously challenge the landlord’s rent records. She says that the tenancy ended on 5 July and that at a meeting she had with the landlord on 6 August, he agreed not to take his application to the Tribunal any further.
On 16 June, the landlord served a 90-day notice on the grounds that he intended selling the premises and intended carrying out substantial renovations.
On 20 June, the tenant wrote to the landlord that she was proposing to vacate the premises on 5 July. The landlord wrote back that he did not accept that, and that the tenant was required to give at least 28 days notice to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant did not respond and on 26 July the landlord wrote to the tenant asking her what her intentions were. The tenant responded by telling the landlord that she had vacated the premises due to mould.
On 26 July, the landlord attended the premises and found that the tenant had vacated the premises. He also found that the front door lock had been changed.
On 2 August the tenant wrote to the landlord suggesting that he withdraw his application to the Tribunal and keep the bond. There was then a discussion between the parties about the tenant returning the keys.
On 6 August the parties met, and the tenant handed over a key to the premises. There was a discussion and the landlord said that if the tenant signed the bond form giving the bond to him and removed her goods and rubbish from the premises within 7 days, he would withdraw his Tribunal application. The tenant did not remove her goods and rubbish.
To validly terminate this periodic tenancy, the tenant was required to give a written notice of at least 28 days. The notice can either give a date when the tenancy is to end or can state that the tenancy will end in 28 days (or a longer period) from the date of the notice. Either way, the notice must make clear the date on which the tenancy is to end.
The tenant’s notice did not comply with those requirements. It did not give at least 28 days notice and using the word “proposing” did not make it clear that the tenant intended to move out after 14 days or at all. The landlord’s response made it clear that he did not accept the notice and that the tenant must give a 28-day notice. The tenant did not do so.
I find that the tenant’s notice did not comply with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) and that it did not validly terminate the tenancy. The tenant had the opportunity to serve a valid notice, but she did not do so. She said that she had found somewhere else to live and she could not afford to pay rent on two properties. That doesn’t excuse the failure to serve a valid notice and by not serving a valid notice, the tenant made the situation worse for herself.
The landlord accepted that he told the tenant that if she removed the goods and rubbish from the premises within 7 days and signed over the bond, he would not proceed with his Tribunal application. The tenant signed over the bond but did not remove the goods and rubbish. The landlord arranged for it to be removed and the invoice for that is dated 3 September, well after the time given to the tenant to clear the premises. It is not clear to me that the agreement reached on 6 August was binding because the tenant promised to do something that she was obliged to do anyway. But even if it was, the tenant did not keep to it and so she cannot rely on it.
I have therefore awarded rent arrears as claimed by the landlord. The Tenant’s Other Obligations
The tenant must pay outgoings relating to their use of the premises.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent).
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent).
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. Water Rates
The tenant accepted the claim for unpaid water rates. Rubbish
The tenant left a substantial amount of goods and rubbish at the premises which the landlord had to dispose of.
The landlord produced an invoice for the cost of removing the goods and rubbish in the sum of $697.61 which I find to be reasonable. I have therefore awarded that sum. Window Damage
The landlord found a window at the rear of the garage to be damaged after the tenant had vacated and before the tenancy ended.
The tenant denied any knowledge of the broken window and suggested that it must have happened after she had vacated.
The landlord said that when he found window broken and with a large hole in it, there was no broken glass near the window, either inside or outside the garage. The absence of any glass means that someone must have cleared it up, and it is likely that it was the tenant who did so.
In any case, I find that the window was broken during the tenancy and the tenant has not disproved liability for it. The tenant is therefore liable for the cost of repairing it.
The landlord produced an estimate for the repair in the sum of $343. He said that someone else repaired the window, but he did not have the invoice. On the basis that he found someone who charged less to repair it I have awarded $250. It was a substantial window, and it is unlikely that it cost less than that. The Tenant’s Claims Law
Under section 45 of the Act, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Where the landlord has not complied with this obligation and the tenant has notified the landlord or made reasonable attempts to notify the landlord, the landlord must compensate the tenant for any expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises.
The applicant is required to establish their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. That means proving that the facts needed to establish the claim are more likely than not to be true. Plumbing Costs
The tenant paid $172.50 to unblock a drain from the kitchen. She tried to contact the landlord about it, but he was overseas, and he was not easily contactable. The tenant could not wait for the landlord to respond and so she arranged for the drain to be unblocked herself. She said that plumber who unblocked it said the blockage was due to tree roots. In any case, the landlord did not accept responsibility for unblocking the drain and he blamed the tenant for the blockage.
The landlord said that the tenant had been living in the premises for four years and so it was likely that she was responsible for blocking the drain. That makes no sense to me. The fact that the tenant had been living in the premises for four years without blocking the drain suggests to me that the blockage was probably not due to her misuse of the facilities in the premises.
The landlord should have responded by arranging for the drain to be unblocked. If his contractor then found that the tenant was in some way responsible for the blockage, he could have taken that up with the tenant. He did not do that and so he has lost the opportunity of discovering for himself the cause of the blockage.
I find that the landlord must reimburse the tenant for the cost she incurred in unblocking the drain and I have made that award. The Condition of the Premises
The tenant says that there was mould in the premises, and she produced photographs showing what appears to be mould covering a significant area of the ceiling of the garage where the laundry facilities are located.
There is also a photograph showing a wall in the toilet where a small section of wallpaper has been peeled back revealing what could be mould or dampness on the wall although it is difficult to tell.
A photograph shows the vanity in the bathroom damaged in places where the laminate has broken and exposed the MDF substrate. That has resulted in the substrate swelling. I can see no mould in the photographs. Bathrooms are damp areas and the type of damage shown in the photograph is not unusual. It does not indicate an underlying defect in the premises, except to the vanity itself.
The tenant indicated in her application and to this Tribunal at an earlier hearing that she wanted to arrange her own building inspection of the premises. I indicated in a previous order that I would expect the landlord to allow that. The tenant did not arrange an inspection, she said due to lack of funds to pay for it.
The landlord has also produced photographs. They show the roof space above the garage ceiling to be dry with no evidence of mould or defect.
He points out that there is no evidence that the tenant complained about mould until she served a breach notice on 14 June 2024, shortly before she tried to give a 14-day termination notice. This tenancy began in May 2020, and he said that two inspections during the tenancy did not reveal any defects.
The landlord arranged for a builder to inspect the premises on 2 September 2024 and his short report confirms that he found no defects or evidence of mould apart from the garage ceiling. He put that down to use of the clothes drier without adequate ventilation.
This Tribunal is well used to dealing with claims concerning mould. Mould forms on an organic substrate in the right conditions of temperature and humidity. It is common, and its causes can include excessive moisture, a lack of ventilation or some defect in premises allowing water ingress or dampness.
A landlord will be responsible for mould in the premises where it is caused or contributed to by a breach of the landlord’s repairing obligations.
In this case there is no evidence that mould has been caused by a breach of the landlord’s obligations. The most likely cause of mould in the garage is from use of the clothes drier.
In any case, there is no evidence that mould in the garage would affect the tenant or others in the habitable areas of the premises.
The tenant has failed to prove her claim relating to the condition of the premises and so it must be dismissed. Retaliatory Termination Notice
The tenant’s application mentions a retaliatory notice, but it is not clear from the application that she claims money compensation or exemplary damages.
In any case, the Act requires such a claim to be filed within 28 days of the termination notice. The notice was served on 23 June and the application was filed on 5 September, well beyond the 28 days.
I note also that the landlord produced photographs showing that substantial renovation work is underway at the premises suggesting that the termination notice was genuine.
Finally, the tenant chose to vacate the premises a short time after the termination notice, she says, due to mould. That suggests that it was not in response to the termination notice. Filing Fee
The landlord has been substantially successful and so I have awarded him the filing fee. Suppression
I have declined the tenant’s application for name suppression. She has had very limited success in this case and there is no good reason to override the principle of open justice.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4953614 — net $3,203.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 6 August 2024	$5,074.00		Rent arrears to 6 August 2024
Water rates	$47.38		Water rates
Window repairs	$250.00		Window repairs
Rubbish removal	$697.61		Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Plumbing expenses		$172.50	Plumbing expenses
Total award	$6,095.99	$172.50
Net award	$3,203.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,203.49

Order

Ashleigh Bailey must pay Teng Chow Bernard Lum $3,203.49 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
The tenant’s application for suppression is refused.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video conference.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for reimbursement for plumbing costs and compensation for the unsatisfactory condition of the premises. The Landlord’s Application Rent
The landlord claims $5,074 rent arrears to 6 August 2024. He provided rent records supporting the rent payable to that date. The tenant did not seriously challenge the landlord’s rent records. She says that the tenancy ended on 5 July and that at a meeting she had with the landlord on 6 August, he agreed not to take his application to the Tribunal any further.
On 16 June, the landlord served a 90-day notice on the grounds that he intended selling the premises and intended carrying out substantial renovations.
On 20 June, the tenant wrote to the landlord that she was proposing to vacate the premises on 5 July. The landlord wrote back that he did not accept that, and that the tenant was required to give at least 28 days notice to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant did not respond and on 26 July the landlord wrote to the tenant asking her what her intentions were. The tenant responded by telling the landlord that she had vacated the premises due to mould.
On 26 July, the landlord attended the premises and found that the tenant had vacated the premises. He also found that the front door lock had been changed.
On 2 August the tenant wrote to the landlord suggesting that he withdraw his application to the Tribunal and keep the bond. There was then a discussion between the parties about the tenant returning the keys.
On 6 August the parties met, and the tenant handed over a key to the premises. There was a discussion and the landlord said that if the tenant signed the bond form giving the bond to him and removed her goods and rubbish from the premises within 7 days, he would withdraw his Tribunal application. The tenant did not remove her goods and rubbish.
To validly terminate this periodic tenancy, the tenant was required to give a written notice of at least 28 days. The notice can either give a date when the tenancy is to end or can state that the tenancy will end in 28 days (or a longer period) from the date of the notice. Either way, the notice must make clear the date on which the tenancy is to end.
The tenant’s notice did not comply with those requirements. It did not give at least 28 days notice and using the word “proposing” did not make it clear that the tenant intended to move out after 14 days or at all. The landlord’s response made it clear that he did not accept the notice and that the tenant must give a 28-day notice. The tenant did not do so.
I find that the tenant’s notice did not comply with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) and that it did not validly terminate the tenancy. The tenant had the opportunity to serve a valid notice, but she did not do so. She said that she had found somewhere else to live and she could not afford to pay rent on two properties. That doesn’t excuse the failure to serve a valid notice and by not serving a valid notice, the tenant made the situation worse for herself.
The landlord accepted that he told the tenant that if she removed the goods and rubbish from the premises within 7 days and signed over the bond, he would not proceed with his Tribunal application. The tenant signed over the bond but did not remove the goods and rubbish. The landlord arranged for it to be removed and the invoice for that is dated 3 September, well after the time given to the tenant to clear the premises. It is not clear to me that the agreement reached on 6 August was binding because the tenant promised to do something that she was obliged to do anyway. But even if it was, the tenant did not keep to it and so she cannot rely on it.
I have therefore awarded rent arrears as claimed by the landlord. The Tenant’s Other Obligations
The tenant must pay outgoings relating to their use of the premises.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent).
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent).
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. Water Rates
The tenant accepted the claim for unpaid water rates. Rubbish
The tenant left a substantial amount of goods and rubbish at the premises which the landlord had to dispose of.
The landlord produced an invoice for the cost of removing the goods and rubbish in the sum of $697.61 which I find to be reasonable. I have therefore awarded that sum. Window Damage
The landlord found a window at the rear of the garage to be damaged after the tenant had vacated and before the tenancy ended.
The tenant denied any knowledge of the broken window and suggested that it must have happened after she had vacated.
The landlord said that when he found window broken and with a large hole in it, there was no broken glass near the window, either inside or outside the garage. The absence of any glass means that someone must have cleared it up, and it is likely that it was the tenant who did so.
In any case, I find that the window was broken during the tenancy and the tenant has not disproved liability for it. The tenant is therefore liable for the cost of repairing it.
The landlord produced an estimate for the repair in the sum of $343. He said that someone else repaired the window, but he did not have the invoice. On the basis that he found someone who charged less to repair it I have awarded $250. It was a substantial window, and it is unlikely that it cost less than that. The Tenant’s Claims Law
Under section 45 of the Act, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Where the landlord has not complied with this obligation and the tenant has notified the landlord or made reasonable attempts to notify the landlord, the landlord must compensate the tenant for any expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises.
The applicant is required to establish their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. That means proving that the facts needed to establish the claim are more likely than not to be true. Plumbing Costs
The tenant paid $172.50 to unblock a drain from the kitchen. She tried to contact the landlord about it, but he was overseas, and he was not easily contactable. The tenant could not wait for the landlord to respond and so she arranged for the drain to be unblocked herself. She said that plumber who unblocked it said the blockage was due to tree roots. In any case, the landlord did not accept responsibility for unblocking the drain and he blamed the tenant for the blockage.
The landlord said that the tenant had been living in the premises for four years and so it was likely that she was responsible for blocking the drain. That makes no sense to me. The fact that the tenant had been living in the premises for four years without blocking the drain suggests to me that the blockage was probably not due to her misuse of the facilities in the premises.
The landlord should have responded by arranging for the drain to be unblocked. If his contractor then found that the tenant was in some way responsible for the blockage, he could have taken that up with the tenant. He did not do that and so he has lost the opportunity of discovering for himself the cause of the blockage.
I find that the landlord must reimburse the tenant for the cost she incurred in unblocking the drain and I have made that award. The Condition of the Premises
The tenant says that there was mould in the premises, and she produced photographs showing what appears to be mould covering a significant area of the ceiling of the garage where the laundry facilities are located.
There is also a photograph showing a wall in the toilet where a small section of wallpaper has been peeled back revealing what could be mould or dampness on the wall although it is difficult to tell.
A photograph shows the vanity in the bathroom damaged in places where the laminate has broken and exposed the MDF substrate. That has resulted in the substrate swelling. I can see no mould in the photographs. Bathrooms are damp areas and the type of damage shown in the photograph is not unusual. It does not indicate an underlying defect in the premises, except to the vanity itself.
The tenant indicated in her application and to this Tribunal at an earlier hearing that she wanted to arrange her own building inspection of the premises. I indicated in a previous order that I would expect the landlord to allow that. The tenant did not arrange an inspection, she said due to lack of funds to pay for it.
The landlord has also produced photographs. They show the roof space above the garage ceiling to be dry with no evidence of mould or defect.
He points out that there is no evidence that the tenant complained about mould until she served a breach notice on 14 June 2024, shortly before she tried to give a 14-day termination notice. This tenancy began in May 2020, and he said that two inspections during the tenancy did not reveal any defects.
The landlord arranged for a builder to inspect the premises on 2 September 2024 and his short report confirms that he found no defects or evidence of mould apart from the garage ceiling. He put that down to use of the clothes drier without adequate ventilation.
This Tribunal is well used to dealing with claims concerning mould. Mould forms on an organic substrate in the right conditions of temperature and humidity. It is common, and its causes can include excessive moisture, a lack of ventilation or some defect in premises allowing water ingress or dampness.
A landlord will be responsible for mould in the premises where it is caused or contributed to by a breach of the landlord’s repairing obligations.
In this case there is no evidence that mould has been caused by a breach of the landlord’s obligations. The most likely cause of mould in the garage is from use of the clothes drier.
In any case, there is no evidence that mould in the garage would affect the tenant or others in the habitable areas of the premises.
The tenant has failed to prove her claim relating to the condition of the premises and so it must be dismissed. Retaliatory Termination Notice
The tenant’s application mentions a retaliatory notice, but it is not clear from the application that she claims money compensation or exemplary damages.
In any case, the Act requires such a claim to be filed within 28 days of the termination notice. The notice was served on 23 June and the application was filed on 5 September, well beyond the 28 days.
I note also that the landlord produced photographs showing that substantial renovation work is underway at the premises suggesting that the termination notice was genuine.
Finally, the tenant chose to vacate the premises a short time after the termination notice, she says, due to mould. That suggests that it was not in response to the termination notice. Filing Fee
The landlord has been substantially successful and so I have awarded him the filing fee. Suppression
I have declined the tenant’s application for name suppression. She has had very limited success in this case and there is no good reason to override the principle of open justice.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4953614 — Rent arrears at 1B Borris Close, East Tamaki, Auckland 2016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4953614 — Rent arrears at 1B Borris Close, East Tamaki, Auckland 2016

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions