What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5045154?

The tribunal order states: Spectre Property Management Services Limited As Agent For Jialong Yao must

How much money was awarded in case 5045154?

Rubbish Removal: $437.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Power bill reimburseme…: $811.70 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,360.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5045154?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5045154?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11134860-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5045154?

The tribunal order states: Spectre Property Management Services Limited As Agent For Jialong Yao must

How much money was awarded in case 5045154?

Rubbish Removal: $437.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Power bill reimburseme…: $811.70 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,360.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5045154?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5045154?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11134860-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

270A Muriwai Road, Waimauku, RD 1, Waimauku 0881 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5045154 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5045154 — net $1,734.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning: and rubbish removal	$437.00		Carpet Cleaning: and rubbish removal
Compensation: Power bill reimbursement		$811.70	Power bill reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$1,360.00	Failure to maintain
Total award	$437.00	$2,171.70
Net award		$1,734.70
Bond		$2,720.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,734.70

Order

Spectre Property Management Services Limited As Agent For Jialong Yao must pay Chloe Chanel Parker $1,734.70 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 (6543509-001) to Chloe Chanel Parker immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on 22 July 2024 and ended on 1 October 2024. It had been a fixed term tenancy due to end on 20 July 2025, but the parties agreed to end the tenancy early. Tenant application
The tenant applied for a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards, to be released from the fixed term tenancy, for compensation and for exemplary damages.
The tenancy lasted less than three months. For a tenancy commencing between 28 August 2022 and 2 March 2025 the Healthy Homes compliance date is 120 days from the tenancy start date. The compliance date for this rental was therefore 21 October 2024. As the tenancy ended before the compliance date the landlord has not breached the Healthy Homes standards.
The tenant’s claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards is dismissed.
As stated above the parties agreed to end the tenancy early. It is not necessary to consider the tenant’s application to be released from the fixed term tenancy and therefore it is dismissed.
The tenant applied for compensation for having to use bottled water. No evidence was produced in relation to how much water was purchased and the cost of that water.
However, at the hearing the tenant sought compensation by reimbursement for the high-power bill that she received in September 2024. For 30 days power the tenant received an invoice totalling $479.23. In comparison, for the previous month the tenant had received an invoice of $198.03 which was reduced to $94.62 after the tenant provided the actual meter reading. The September 2024 invoice was based on an actual reading.
As the tenant was unable to pay this large amount due to penalties it increased to $811.70 on the day of hearing.
The tenant raised the issue of the excessive power invoice with the landlord. An electrician was employed, and he could not identify a reason for the high- power usage. He recommended a temporary metering device but one was never installed. A second electrician was employed in relation to the electrical issues at the premises, but his role was to make the premises safe rather than identify the cause of the high-power usage.
The landlord has a home on the same section as well as greenhouses and outbuildings. Apparently, the landlord has separate power accounts for these. Given the high-power usage the landlord should have arranged for installation of a check meter as it is possible that the tenant was being charged for power usage from other areas of the property. Given the landlord’s failure to adequately address this issue I have decided that the landlord should pay for the September power account. It may be that the leaky hot water cylinder also affected the power usage which is a maintenance issue.
I have reimbursed the amount owed by the tenant for the power usage during this one month. This is a debt owed by the tenant so I have awarded the amount owing so that she can pay this debt.
Chloe Chanel Parker claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The maintenance issues included in relation to broken exterior cladding, the water supply, the wastewater and sewerage leaks, substandard electrical work, a leaking hot water cylinder and rotten and mouldy subflooring.
The tenant produced a photograph of the broken cladding. Apparently, this was fixed the day after it was raised but no evidence was produced to establish that it was fixed to an adequate standard. The tenant mentioned that a piece of wood was attached to the existing cladding rather than repairing it properly.
The water supply to the premises is from a bore. The landlord said that there are three filters on the water supply, but the owner suggested that the tenant boil the water before using. In addition, at the hearing the landlord advised that the owner was happy to upgrade to a UV filter.
I find the requirement for the tenant to boil the water odd and suggests that there is something wrong with the water that the landlord is not disclosing. Unfortunately, no test results are to hand in relation to the water quality, but I determine that the need to boil the water even if just as a precaution demonstrates that the water was of a low quality and therefore a maintenance issue for the landlord.
There was sewerage and wastewater leaking at the premises. A contractor investigated and discovered a broken pipe that was repaired. Another company was employed to unblock the pipes and empty the septic tank. The tenant raised the issue of the leakage on 13 August 2024. The issue was not completely addressed until 13 September 2024. The tenant had issued a 14- day notice to remedy in respect of the sewerage leak on 11 September 2024.
The tenant produced a photograph showing the area where the leakage occurred. The photograph was taken after the contractors had repaired the leakage and blockage. The photograph shows that the area was not cleared of rubbish or waste as it should have been.
There was exposed wiring that the tenant had advised the landlord about. An electrician attended to fix this and other issues that had been identified. Before this was fixed there was a safety risk for the tenant and her young family.
An important issue was the rotten, mouldy flooring in the third bedroom. The tenant lifted the corner of the carpet to reveal mould on the subfloor. Of concern is that there are two metal brackets attached to the subfloor and the wall which looks like it was there to hold the floor up. The subfloor is wet, and an extra piece of flooring has been put on top of the wet subfloor. The person who put in the piece of flooring (which had mould growth) and the brackets did so knowing that there was a major issue with this flooring.
The landlord downplayed this issue by saying that the carpet was not wet and there was no musty or moudly smell.
I note that after the tenant left the tenancy the entire floor in this room as well as at least half a meter up the wall was removed and replaced. This suggests that this issue was major, and it was known by the landlord or his agent. This property had been purchased in 2011 and this issue was more recent than before purchase.
Some of these maintenance issues were resolved during the short tenancy but some were not. The landlord should have checked the premises before tenanting it as I understand it had been vacant for four years previously. This would have given the landlord plenty of opportunity to ensure that the premises were well maintained, and they were not.
I consider that the landlord was aware of most of these issues prior to the tenancy commencing. The failure to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard has had a significant impact on the tenant and as a result she sought to leave the fixed term tenancy early. An award of exemplary damages in these circumstances is warranted and I consider that $1,360.00, which is equivalent to two weeks rent, is reasonable. Landlord application
The landlord applied for compensation for carpet cleaning, rubbish removal and flea treatment.
Photographs were produced showing that there was pet hair on the carpet and bags of rubbish left behind. On the evidence I accept that the landlord should be compensated for carpet cleaning and rubbish removal and that amount is awarded.
In relation to flea treatment, no evidence was produced to establish that it was required. The tenant had cats in the premises, but their presence does not necessarily mean that flea treatment is required. The landlord can choose to carry out such treatment between tenancies but that does not mean that the tenant is responsible for such costs.
The parties signed a pet agreement and clause 9 of that agreement states that “Where a pet has been permitted inside the property, the carpets must be left reasonably clean and tidy and if the tenanted property is left below that standard, the carpets may have to be commercially cleaned, and/or pest treated and/or any odours removed to achieve the standard.”
The agreement states that the carpet may have to be pest treated. Even if the agreement stated that the carpet had to be pest treated such treatment would need to be required in relation to section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s claim in respect of pest treatment is dismissed. Filing fee
As both parties have had some success with their applications I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5045154 — net $1,734.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning: and rubbish removal	$437.00		Carpet Cleaning: and rubbish removal
Compensation: Power bill reimbursement		$811.70	Power bill reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain		$1,360.00	Failure to maintain
Total award	$437.00	$2,171.70
Net award		$1,734.70
Bond		$2,720.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,734.70

Order

Spectre Property Management Services Limited As Agent For Jialong Yao must pay Chloe Chanel Parker $1,734.70 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 (6543509-001) to Chloe Chanel Parker immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on 22 July 2024 and ended on 1 October 2024. It had been a fixed term tenancy due to end on 20 July 2025, but the parties agreed to end the tenancy early. Tenant application
The tenant applied for a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards, to be released from the fixed term tenancy, for compensation and for exemplary damages.
The tenancy lasted less than three months. For a tenancy commencing between 28 August 2022 and 2 March 2025 the Healthy Homes compliance date is 120 days from the tenancy start date. The compliance date for this rental was therefore 21 October 2024. As the tenancy ended before the compliance date the landlord has not breached the Healthy Homes standards.
The tenant’s claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards is dismissed.
As stated above the parties agreed to end the tenancy early. It is not necessary to consider the tenant’s application to be released from the fixed term tenancy and therefore it is dismissed.
The tenant applied for compensation for having to use bottled water. No evidence was produced in relation to how much water was purchased and the cost of that water.
However, at the hearing the tenant sought compensation by reimbursement for the high-power bill that she received in September 2024. For 30 days power the tenant received an invoice totalling $479.23. In comparison, for the previous month the tenant had received an invoice of $198.03 which was reduced to $94.62 after the tenant provided the actual meter reading. The September 2024 invoice was based on an actual reading.
As the tenant was unable to pay this large amount due to penalties it increased to $811.70 on the day of hearing.
The tenant raised the issue of the excessive power invoice with the landlord. An electrician was employed, and he could not identify a reason for the high- power usage. He recommended a temporary metering device but one was never installed. A second electrician was employed in relation to the electrical issues at the premises, but his role was to make the premises safe rather than identify the cause of the high-power usage.
The landlord has a home on the same section as well as greenhouses and outbuildings. Apparently, the landlord has separate power accounts for these. Given the high-power usage the landlord should have arranged for installation of a check meter as it is possible that the tenant was being charged for power usage from other areas of the property. Given the landlord’s failure to adequately address this issue I have decided that the landlord should pay for the September power account. It may be that the leaky hot water cylinder also affected the power usage which is a maintenance issue.
I have reimbursed the amount owed by the tenant for the power usage during this one month. This is a debt owed by the tenant so I have awarded the amount owing so that she can pay this debt.
Chloe Chanel Parker claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The maintenance issues included in relation to broken exterior cladding, the water supply, the wastewater and sewerage leaks, substandard electrical work, a leaking hot water cylinder and rotten and mouldy subflooring.
The tenant produced a photograph of the broken cladding. Apparently, this was fixed the day after it was raised but no evidence was produced to establish that it was fixed to an adequate standard. The tenant mentioned that a piece of wood was attached to the existing cladding rather than repairing it properly.
The water supply to the premises is from a bore. The landlord said that there are three filters on the water supply, but the owner suggested that the tenant boil the water before using. In addition, at the hearing the landlord advised that the owner was happy to upgrade to a UV filter.
I find the requirement for the tenant to boil the water odd and suggests that there is something wrong with the water that the landlord is not disclosing. Unfortunately, no test results are to hand in relation to the water quality, but I determine that the need to boil the water even if just as a precaution demonstrates that the water was of a low quality and therefore a maintenance issue for the landlord.
There was sewerage and wastewater leaking at the premises. A contractor investigated and discovered a broken pipe that was repaired. Another company was employed to unblock the pipes and empty the septic tank. The tenant raised the issue of the leakage on 13 August 2024. The issue was not completely addressed until 13 September 2024. The tenant had issued a 14- day notice to remedy in respect of the sewerage leak on 11 September 2024.
The tenant produced a photograph showing the area where the leakage occurred. The photograph was taken after the contractors had repaired the leakage and blockage. The photograph shows that the area was not cleared of rubbish or waste as it should have been.
There was exposed wiring that the tenant had advised the landlord about. An electrician attended to fix this and other issues that had been identified. Before this was fixed there was a safety risk for the tenant and her young family.
An important issue was the rotten, mouldy flooring in the third bedroom. The tenant lifted the corner of the carpet to reveal mould on the subfloor. Of concern is that there are two metal brackets attached to the subfloor and the wall which looks like it was there to hold the floor up. The subfloor is wet, and an extra piece of flooring has been put on top of the wet subfloor. The person who put in the piece of flooring (which had mould growth) and the brackets did so knowing that there was a major issue with this flooring.
The landlord downplayed this issue by saying that the carpet was not wet and there was no musty or moudly smell.
I note that after the tenant left the tenancy the entire floor in this room as well as at least half a meter up the wall was removed and replaced. This suggests that this issue was major, and it was known by the landlord or his agent. This property had been purchased in 2011 and this issue was more recent than before purchase.
Some of these maintenance issues were resolved during the short tenancy but some were not. The landlord should have checked the premises before tenanting it as I understand it had been vacant for four years previously. This would have given the landlord plenty of opportunity to ensure that the premises were well maintained, and they were not.
I consider that the landlord was aware of most of these issues prior to the tenancy commencing. The failure to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard has had a significant impact on the tenant and as a result she sought to leave the fixed term tenancy early. An award of exemplary damages in these circumstances is warranted and I consider that $1,360.00, which is equivalent to two weeks rent, is reasonable. Landlord application
The landlord applied for compensation for carpet cleaning, rubbish removal and flea treatment.
Photographs were produced showing that there was pet hair on the carpet and bags of rubbish left behind. On the evidence I accept that the landlord should be compensated for carpet cleaning and rubbish removal and that amount is awarded.
In relation to flea treatment, no evidence was produced to establish that it was required. The tenant had cats in the premises, but their presence does not necessarily mean that flea treatment is required. The landlord can choose to carry out such treatment between tenancies but that does not mean that the tenant is responsible for such costs.
The parties signed a pet agreement and clause 9 of that agreement states that “Where a pet has been permitted inside the property, the carpets must be left reasonably clean and tidy and if the tenanted property is left below that standard, the carpets may have to be commercially cleaned, and/or pest treated and/or any odours removed to achieve the standard.”
The agreement states that the carpet may have to be pest treated. Even if the agreement stated that the carpet had to be pest treated such treatment would need to be required in relation to section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s claim in respect of pest treatment is dismissed. Filing fee
As both parties have had some success with their applications I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5045154 — State of repair at 270A Muriwai Road, Waimauku, RD 1, Waimauku 0881

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5045154 — State of repair at 270A Muriwai Road, Waimauku, RD 1, Waimauku 0881

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions