What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4962960?

The tribunal order states: Kate Sharon Rhodes must pay Buy West Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4962960?

Compensation: $513.50 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,050.00 awarded to landlord; Unpaid Electricity Charges: $135.40 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $391.01 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4962960?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4962960?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11185764-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4962960?

The tribunal order states: Kate Sharon Rhodes must pay Buy West Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4962960?

Compensation: $513.50 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,050.00 awarded to landlord; Unpaid Electricity Charges: $135.40 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $391.01 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4962960?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4962960?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11185764-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21 Malters Place, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4962960 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4962960 — net $929.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 30 August 2024	$4,050.00		Rent arrears to 30 August 2024
Water rates	$391.01		Water rates
Unpaid electricity charges	$135.40		Unpaid electricity charges
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation for heating not working		$513.50	Compensation for heating not working
Total award	$4,603.41	$513.50
Net award	$929.91
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$929.91

Order

Kate Sharon Rhodes must pay Buy West Property Management Limited As Agent For Xueqin Li $929.91 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,160.00 (6260752-010) to Buy West Property Management Limited As Agent For Xueqin Li immediately.
The tenant’s claims that the landlord has breached the Healthy Homes Standards and that the ground floor of the premises was unusable are dismissed.

Reasons

This matter was initially set down to be heard on 30 October 2024. On 29 October 2024, the tenant sought and was granted an adjournment. The hearing was scheduled to be heard today. On 05 December 2024, the tenant applied for a further adjournment. This application was declined. However, the tenant was advised that she could send a representative in her place and/or provide written submissions in advance of the hearing if she wished to do so.
Mr Lee of Buy West Property Management Limited attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing. However, she has provided written submissions, and these have been considered.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, unpaid water rates, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has claimed that the landlord has breached the Healthy Homes Standards and that the ground floor of the premises was unusable. The tenant is seeking compensation and exemplary damages. Burden of proof:
It is not uncommon in tenancy disputes for the parties to have different recollections of events. When this happens, it is necessary for the Tribunal to make a finding as to which version of events it accepts. With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations including that it is up to the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that the applicant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
The District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 noted that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 30 August 2024. The landlord provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger showing that the tenant was in rent arrears of $4,050.00. This amount is proved.
The landlord has provided a ledger of water rates and the relevant invoices showing the sum owing for water at the end of the tenancy. This claim is proved.
The landlord has also claimed $184.26 for electricity. However, the invoice supporting this claim shows a lower amount: $135.40. I award $135.40 for unpaid electricity.

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that landlords must comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For private rentals: a. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; b. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; c. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The premises includes a self-contained unit downstairs. The tenant says she rented the premises because her mother could live in this unit. The tenant has claimed that there was extensive mould throughout the premises which resulted in the downstairs unit being unusable. The tenant also claims that there was a lack of insulation, and that the heating did not work.
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS. The relevant HHS are: Insulation, Heating, Moisture and Drainage.

Did the landlord comply with the HHS Insulation Standard?

From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
The tenant has provided a photograph of the area between the upstairs and downstairs of the premises which does not appear to be insulated. The Healthy Homes Statement provided with the tenancy agreement states that the premises does not have ceiling insulation which complies with the insulation standard. It further states that the premises is exempted from the requirement because the insulation is not reasonably practicable to install. In addition, the landlord has provided a Healthy Homes Assessment Report of 26 September 2024. This report confirms that the premises is exempted from the ceiling insulation requirement and passes the Insulation Standard.
I am satisfied that the landlord has complied with the Insultation Standard. This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach the Heating Standard?

The Heating Standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The Heating Standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS Heating Standard. The tenant says that there were constant issues with the upstairs and downstairs heat pumps in the living arears. The tenant acknowledges that the landlord sent a technician to fix the heat pumps but says the issues with heating continued.
Mr Lee says that the tenant contacted him about the heat pumps not working in early October 2023. The landlord said the heaters were fixed but acknowledges that due to the technician having to visit the premises on several occasions, the tenant was without heating for the month of October. The landlord said that given the time of the year this would not have disadvantaged the tenant. I disagree. October in Auckland can be cold, particularly in the evenings.
I find that the heat pumps did not work for the month of October 2023. Given the relatively short period that the heating was not working, and that the landlord was taking action to remedy the situation, I find that the Heating Standard was not breached.
That said, I consider the tenant did suffer a loss of amenity and award compensation for this loss of 15% of the tenant’s rent for the month of October: $513.50.

Did the landlord comply with the Ventilation Standard?

The Ventilation Standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The Healthy Homes Statement attached to the tenancy agreement provides that all habitable spaces have one or more windows, doors or skylights that open to the outside. It also provides that fans are located in the kitchen and bathrooms and that they were installed pre-2019. The Healthy Homes Assessment Report of 26 September 2024 provides that the premises meets the Ventilation Standard.
The claim that the landlord did not comply with the Ventilation Standard is dismissed.

Did the landlord comply with the Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard?

The Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The Healthy Homes Assessment Report provides that the premises was exempted from the requirement to have a ground moisture barrier and that it failed the drainage standard due to gutters requiring cleaning. However, there is no evidence that the tenant had notified that landlord of any issues with the guttering.
The claim that the landlord did not comply with the Moisture and Drainage Standard is dismissed.

Was the ground floor of the premises unusable?

The tenant asserts that the ground floor of the premises was unusable due to excessive mould. The tenant says that that she was advised by a neighbour that the ground floor had been flooded. The tenant says that the repairs were not adequate.
At the hearing, Mr Lee acknowledged that the ground floor was flooded prior to the commencement of the tenancy. Mr Lee said that when the tenant raised these concerns, arrangements were made to check the repair work and it was confirmed that the repairs were adequate.
Mr Lee also said that following the tenant’s complaints, he checked the mould and did not consider it to be excessive. He said it was “barely there” and could easily have been wiped away. Mr Lee said he recommended to the tenant that she ventilate the premises.
As explained above, it is up to the person bringing the claim to prove the claim on the basis of probabilities. Having considered the landlord’s responses at the hearing and the photographic evidence provided by both parties, the tenant has not satisfied me that the ground floor of the premises was unusable.
This claim is dismissed. Other matters:
Some of the photographs submitted by the tenant prior to the hearing showed vinyl on the premises which was in significant need of repair. The landlord said there is no vinyl in the premises. The landlord provided the ingoing inspection report and a further inspection report from May 2024 which does not show any vinyl in the premises. As the tenant did not attend the hearing, I was unable to put this question to her. Filing fee:
Buy West Property Management Limited As Agent For Xueqin Li has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4962960 — net $929.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 30 August 2024	$4,050.00		Rent arrears to 30 August 2024
Water rates	$391.01		Water rates
Unpaid electricity charges	$135.40		Unpaid electricity charges
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation for heating not working		$513.50	Compensation for heating not working
Total award	$4,603.41	$513.50
Net award	$929.91
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$929.91

Order

Kate Sharon Rhodes must pay Buy West Property Management Limited As Agent For Xueqin Li $929.91 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,160.00 (6260752-010) to Buy West Property Management Limited As Agent For Xueqin Li immediately.
The tenant’s claims that the landlord has breached the Healthy Homes Standards and that the ground floor of the premises was unusable are dismissed.

Reasons

This matter was initially set down to be heard on 30 October 2024. On 29 October 2024, the tenant sought and was granted an adjournment. The hearing was scheduled to be heard today. On 05 December 2024, the tenant applied for a further adjournment. This application was declined. However, the tenant was advised that she could send a representative in her place and/or provide written submissions in advance of the hearing if she wished to do so.
Mr Lee of Buy West Property Management Limited attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing. However, she has provided written submissions, and these have been considered.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, unpaid water rates, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has claimed that the landlord has breached the Healthy Homes Standards and that the ground floor of the premises was unusable. The tenant is seeking compensation and exemplary damages. Burden of proof:
It is not uncommon in tenancy disputes for the parties to have different recollections of events. When this happens, it is necessary for the Tribunal to make a finding as to which version of events it accepts. With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations including that it is up to the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that the applicant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
The District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 noted that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 30 August 2024. The landlord provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger showing that the tenant was in rent arrears of $4,050.00. This amount is proved.
The landlord has provided a ledger of water rates and the relevant invoices showing the sum owing for water at the end of the tenancy. This claim is proved.
The landlord has also claimed $184.26 for electricity. However, the invoice supporting this claim shows a lower amount: $135.40. I award $135.40 for unpaid electricity.

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that landlords must comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS).
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For private rentals: a. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; b. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; c. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
The premises includes a self-contained unit downstairs. The tenant says she rented the premises because her mother could live in this unit. The tenant has claimed that there was extensive mould throughout the premises which resulted in the downstairs unit being unusable. The tenant also claims that there was a lack of insulation, and that the heating did not work.
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS. The relevant HHS are: Insulation, Heating, Moisture and Drainage.

Did the landlord comply with the HHS Insulation Standard?

From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
The tenant has provided a photograph of the area between the upstairs and downstairs of the premises which does not appear to be insulated. The Healthy Homes Statement provided with the tenancy agreement states that the premises does not have ceiling insulation which complies with the insulation standard. It further states that the premises is exempted from the requirement because the insulation is not reasonably practicable to install. In addition, the landlord has provided a Healthy Homes Assessment Report of 26 September 2024. This report confirms that the premises is exempted from the ceiling insulation requirement and passes the Insulation Standard.
I am satisfied that the landlord has complied with the Insultation Standard. This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach the Heating Standard?

The Heating Standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The Heating Standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS Heating Standard. The tenant says that there were constant issues with the upstairs and downstairs heat pumps in the living arears. The tenant acknowledges that the landlord sent a technician to fix the heat pumps but says the issues with heating continued.
Mr Lee says that the tenant contacted him about the heat pumps not working in early October 2023. The landlord said the heaters were fixed but acknowledges that due to the technician having to visit the premises on several occasions, the tenant was without heating for the month of October. The landlord said that given the time of the year this would not have disadvantaged the tenant. I disagree. October in Auckland can be cold, particularly in the evenings.
I find that the heat pumps did not work for the month of October 2023. Given the relatively short period that the heating was not working, and that the landlord was taking action to remedy the situation, I find that the Heating Standard was not breached.
That said, I consider the tenant did suffer a loss of amenity and award compensation for this loss of 15% of the tenant’s rent for the month of October: $513.50.

Did the landlord comply with the Ventilation Standard?

The Ventilation Standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The Healthy Homes Statement attached to the tenancy agreement provides that all habitable spaces have one or more windows, doors or skylights that open to the outside. It also provides that fans are located in the kitchen and bathrooms and that they were installed pre-2019. The Healthy Homes Assessment Report of 26 September 2024 provides that the premises meets the Ventilation Standard.
The claim that the landlord did not comply with the Ventilation Standard is dismissed.

Did the landlord comply with the Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard?

The Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The Healthy Homes Assessment Report provides that the premises was exempted from the requirement to have a ground moisture barrier and that it failed the drainage standard due to gutters requiring cleaning. However, there is no evidence that the tenant had notified that landlord of any issues with the guttering.
The claim that the landlord did not comply with the Moisture and Drainage Standard is dismissed.

Was the ground floor of the premises unusable?

The tenant asserts that the ground floor of the premises was unusable due to excessive mould. The tenant says that that she was advised by a neighbour that the ground floor had been flooded. The tenant says that the repairs were not adequate.
At the hearing, Mr Lee acknowledged that the ground floor was flooded prior to the commencement of the tenancy. Mr Lee said that when the tenant raised these concerns, arrangements were made to check the repair work and it was confirmed that the repairs were adequate.
Mr Lee also said that following the tenant’s complaints, he checked the mould and did not consider it to be excessive. He said it was “barely there” and could easily have been wiped away. Mr Lee said he recommended to the tenant that she ventilate the premises.
As explained above, it is up to the person bringing the claim to prove the claim on the basis of probabilities. Having considered the landlord’s responses at the hearing and the photographic evidence provided by both parties, the tenant has not satisfied me that the ground floor of the premises was unusable.
This claim is dismissed. Other matters:
Some of the photographs submitted by the tenant prior to the hearing showed vinyl on the premises which was in significant need of repair. The landlord said there is no vinyl in the premises. The landlord provided the ingoing inspection report and a further inspection report from May 2024 which does not show any vinyl in the premises. As the tenant did not attend the hearing, I was unable to put this question to her. Filing fee:
Buy West Property Management Limited As Agent For Xueqin Li has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4962960 — Rent arrears at 21 Malters Place, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4962960 — Rent arrears at 21 Malters Place, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

Did the landlord comply with the HHS Insulation Standard?

Did the landlord breach the Heating Standard?

Did the landlord comply with the Ventilation Standard?

Did the landlord comply with the Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard?

Was the ground floor of the premises unusable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

Did the landlord comply with the HHS Insulation Standard?

Did the landlord breach the Heating Standard?

Did the landlord comply with the Ventilation Standard?

Did the landlord comply with the Moisture Ingress and Drainage Standard?

Was the ground floor of the premises unusable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions