What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5151414?

The tribunal order states: Anuradha Jayampathi Munidasa Perumahandi and Sandalekha Herath must

How much money was awarded in case 5151414?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,531.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,229.78 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $289.09 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5151414?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5151414?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11886528-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5151414?

The tribunal order states: Anuradha Jayampathi Munidasa Perumahandi and Sandalekha Herath must

How much money was awarded in case 5151414?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,531.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,229.78 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $289.09 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5151414?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5151414?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11886528-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 50, 17 Georgia Terrace, Albany, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5151414 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5151414 — net $4,557.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25.9.25	$5,531.43	Rent arrears to 25.9.25
Water rates	$289.09	Water rates
Repairs: Chemdry invoice for flood damage	$2,229.78	Repairs: Chemdry invoice for flood damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,557.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,557.30

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5151414 — net $4,557.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25.9.25	$5,531.43	Rent arrears to 25.9.25
Water rates	$289.09	Water rates
Repairs: Chemdry invoice for flood damage	$2,229.78	Repairs: Chemdry invoice for flood damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,557.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,557.30

Order

Anuradha Jayampathi Munidasa Perumahandi and Sandalekha Herath must pay Northside Property Management Limited As Agent For A Hall $4,557.30 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,520.00 (5169403-006) to Northside Property Management Limited As Agent For A Hall immediately.
The landlord’s break lease fee claim is dismissed.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has lodged an application in respect of vacated compensation relating to failing to maintain, Healthy Homes Standards, fixed term tenancy and loss of use of the garage.
The landlord filed a cross application applying for rent and water arrears, compensation for flood damage, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Before I address the specific claims, I will summarise some general legal principles that apply.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means 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. Landlord application:

How much is owed for rent and water arrears?

The tenancy began on 27 February 2024 and ended on 25 September 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants confirmed during the hearing that they agree with the claim for outstanding water charges. Rent arrears:
The tenants were subject to a fixed term lease for 12 months and notified the landlord during the fixed term that they needed to break the fixed term and vacate early. The reason they provided was that they had purchased a house to live in. They notified the landlord by email in respect of this on 16 July 2024. The landlord replied by email advising the tenants that they were subject to a fixed term tenancy.
The landlord says that new tenants moved in on 26 September 2024. The landlord produced a rent ledger confirming the outstanding amount up to 25 September 2024.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that no payments have been received since the application was lodged on 30 January 2025.
The tenants confirmed during the hearing that they are aware of the rent arrears based on the fixed term contract but say that they did not receive any notification from the landlord regarding the date the new tenants were moving in. They also feel frustrated that they are liable for rent up until 25 September 2024 even though they returned the keys and vacated early.
The tenants say that they found a house to purchase and started paying a mortgage in August 2024. The tenants say that they put a great deal of effort into finding a replacement tenant however none were approved by the landlord. The tenants say that a replacement should have been approved earlier.
They also emailed the landlord asking to be released from the tenancy as they were facing severe financial hardship if they were forced to continue with the tenancy. The tenant further stated that they were starting to pay the mortgage on their new property that they purchased on 9 August 2024 and “if I continue this tenancy I will not be able to pay the mortgage plus rent. It’s a real struggle for me and very stressful for me and my family. So I need to move out of this property as soon as possible”. Analysis
The tenants do not dispute that they were subject to a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term of 12 months. As discussed during the hearing a fixed term tenancy can only terminated early by mutual agreement between the parties or by order of this Tribunal.
The tenants agreed to a fixed term tenancy when they signed the Tenancy Agreement on 14 February 2024. The fixed term was from 27 February 2024 to 26 February 2025. The tenants made the conscious decision to commit themselves to the purchase of a house during the fixed term. They had a legal obligation to continue paying rent until such time as a replacement tenant was found. It is clear from the evidence that the tenants are responsible for the payment of rent up to 25 September 2024.
The landlord’s claims for rent arrears and outstanding water charges are proven. Break lease fee
The landlord has claimed a break lease fee of $1012.00. The fee is the equivalent of one weeks rent plus GST. The fixed term started on 27 February 2024 and expired on 26 February 2025. The tenants vacated the premises prior to the expiry of the fixed term.
The tenants’ evidence was that they referred several prospective tenants to the landlord in an attempt to take over the lease. Most, if not all, were rejected. 44A Recovery of expenses incurred by landlord (1) A landlord who consents to an assignment under section 43B, to a subletting or parting with possession under section 44, or to termination of the tenancy in accordance with section 50(1)(d) is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the assignment, subletting, parting with possession, or termination. (2) A landlord who seeks to recover expenses from a tenant in accordance with subsection (1) must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant. Analysis:
There is no evidence of an itemised account provided in support of the landlord’s claim for the break lease fee. The landlord has claimed one weeks rent plus GST in lieu of this. The RTA is clear in this regard that an itemised account must be provided to the tenant which sets out the expenses incurred reletting the property.
The landlord claim for a break lease fee must be dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Bathroom flood damage:

The landlord claims that the tenants are responsible for damage to the upstairs bedroom carpet along with the associated cost of having the carpet dried. They say that it is the tenants who are responsible for this damage as a direct result of the use of the shower by the tenant’s daughter.
A detailed invoice from ChemDry dated 31 July 2024 was provided by the landlord in support of this claim. According to the invoice water damage impacted the bedroom carpet because of bathroom flooding. The invoice detail states that the technician arrived on site on 10 July 2024 to find clean water flood from overflowed shower in ensuite bathroom. Water had flowed into the bedroom carpet and lower walls either side of the doorway. The work undertaken to dry the carpet was significant and took the best part of one week.
The tenants dispute this claim as recorded in their application to the Tribunal. They say that their 3-year-old daughter “sprayed water on the floor” and as a result water leaked through the bathroom floor, eventually running through the downstairs kitchen ceiling light fitting.
The tenants produced a short video during the hearing which showed a steady stream of water running through the kitchen ceiling light. The tenants claim that this was due to the bathroom floor not being waterproof. The tenants were concerned for their safety as a result of this issue.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Analysis:
Adjudicators make their own assessment of the meaning of the Act and in doing so will consider relevant decisions made by other adjudicators and the Courts. In a tenancy case from 2019 Justice Walker referred to accidental damage and carelessness as follows. “.. accidental damage generally encompasses damage arising from the insured party’s carelessness or negligence...”. Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 154. He has linked accidental damage and carelessness. In Tekoa Trust v Stewart [2017] DCR 628, Judge D G Smith addressed the question of whether the tenant’s actions were “an accidental or careless act” or “an intentional and deliberate act”. The use of “or” reflects that the Judge viewed “careless” and “accidental” acts as interchangeable terms when looking at the difference between these acts and “intentional and deliberate” acts.
As already noted, there is no dispute between the parties that there was an event in the bathroom which caused flooding. The flooding caused water damage to the bedroom ensuite carpet which required significant time and effort to repair. There is no evidence before me confirming that the flooding was caused by a plumbing issue such as a burst pipe. The tenants assertion that the damage is a result of the bathroom floor not being waterproof and the property being unsafe, is without merit and not supported by any evidence.
Having reviewed the evidence provided with both applications I am entirely satisfied that the damage was caused by a careless act of the tenants. The tenant’s video and the photographic evidence of the carpet, in my view, speaks for itself. This event was not caused by a ‘spray of water’ as advised by the tenant. This was clearly a careless event which caused a significant volume of water to escape from the confines of the bathroom area.
Carelessness is not defined in the RTA, but its usual meaning is the lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. It can also be defined as heedless or thoughtless and can cover a situation of inadvertent lack of care. The standard of care is the standard of an ordinary careful person. An ordinary careful person is not expected to take precautions against every foreseeable risk, but only against those risks that are reasonably likely to happen.
Furthermore, the damage must be of a kind that can fairly and reasonably be considered as arising naturally from the breach or a probable result of the breach. This means that the damage will not be compensated if considered to be too remote.
In this case, having regard to the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find that the landlord has established its claim, and the tenants have been unable to disprove liability.
The tenants are therefore liable for the amount claimed by the landlord.
The amount ordered for water damage is established. Tenant application: Breach of Healthy Home Standards/Failure to maintain
Anuradha Jayampathi Munidasa Perumahandi and Sandalekha Herath claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants say that the landlord did not provide/maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenants claim, as recorded in their application, relates to an ‘existing leak in the upstairs bathroom’. During the hearing the tenants provided a summary document where they sought to include further claims with their application. These claims related to damp and mould throughout the house; lack of weather- seal; heating and health care costs and a claim that the property was not in a habitable state for a young family. Included in this summary were references to the New Zealand Building Code. There was also a photograph of a what appears to be a wet bedroom window.
The tenants say a water leak took place in the bathroom and ended up going through the ceiling and ended up down in the kitchen. The tenant says that their daughter ‘sprayed some water on the bathroom floor’ and the tenant says that the area should be waterproof. They claim the property is not safe. They say that no plumber came to fix the issue. The landlord sent an electrician to check the wiring and was signed off as safe.
The tenant produced a short video of the leak from the upstairs bathroom which was coming through the kitchen ceiling light downstairs. The landlord was also shown this video during the hearing. The video was taken on 7 July 2024. The tenant notified the landlord by email on 8 July 2024 and the landlord replied by email on 9 July 2024.
The tenants stated that their concern was if the water came again then it could affect the electrical wiring. He says he was thinking of the safety of his family. The tenant says that their 3-year-old daughter was in the shower at the time the flood occurred. Healthy Homes breach
The tenants confirmed that there were 3 heat pumps and an HRV system installed when they moved in.
They say that there was mould around their bedroom window. They say that the windows were wet and that the HRV ventilation system was running at all times.
The landlord confirmed that the 3 heat pumps and the HRV system were installed prior to these tenants moving in on 27 February 2024. At one stage the tenants emailed the landlord asking how to turn off the HRV system. The landlord promptly replied with a direction that they do not turn off this system as it provided a source of fresh air and ventilation inside the premises and helps prevent mould.
The landlord provided a copy of the Healthy Homes assessment report from Certified Insulation Limited dated 28 March 2022.
In this case the best evidence around compliance with the HHS is that provided from an independent HHS assessor in the assessment report from March 2022. The independent assessor did not identify any issues with draughts in the house, or with moisture ingress and drainage. They only identified heating as an issue which was addressed with an additional heat pump. I have not received any professional assessment reports from the tenants showing excessive gaps or water ingress, ventilation, moisture or drainage issues.
The tenants also produced an email from Auckland Council dated 16 August 2024. The tenants had complained to the Council in respect of the premises. The finding of the Council was that while the property did feel quite cold and damp there were no obvious signs of excessive moisture present. The Council also confirmed that the premises did not meet the strict criteria as being uninhabitable or posing a health risk under the Health Act 1956. Analysis:
I find that the tenant’s claim in respect of the landlord failing to maintain and breaching Healthy Home Standards is without merit.
As recorded in my decision in respect of the landlord’s application it is my clear view that the flooding damage was a direct result of a careless act by the tenants. It is not the result of a defect such as a burst bathroom water pipe or a bathroom floor which is not waterproof. The volume of water also far exceeded what was alleged by the tenants as a ‘spray of water’ by their daughter. The tenant’s video clearly shows a torrent of water running through the kitchen ceiling light fitting.
The tenants emailed the landlord on 8 July 2024 advising them of the flood. The landlord replied promptly the following day. The landlord also promptly arranged for Chemdry to attend and begin the repair process.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not breach their obligations by failing to maintain the property as alleged by the tenants.
During the hearing the tenants also sought to add the following claims to their application: a. Rent compensation $5280.00 b. Increased heating costs $600.00 c. Replacement of damaged items $1200.00 d. Medical expenses $300.00 e. Mental and emotional distress $2200.00 f. Cleaning or mould removal costs $100.00 g. Loss of use of room space $600.00
As advised to the tenant during the hearing the Tribunal can only deal with claims which have been recorded in the original application. It is unfair on the other party to try and include additional claims of this magnitude on the day of the hearing. In any event I find that these claims are without merit and lack any evidence in support.
To advance claims of this nature I would have expected the tenants to provide their own Healthy Homes assessment report in support of their claim that the property does not comply. I would also have expected detailed entry photographs confirming the state of the property at the start of the tenancy. I am also mindful that the tenants would have further difficulty here, in that I have not received any evidence from a suitably qualified person who has assessed the house, such as a plumber, builder or electrician, supporting that work needed to be done. While I accept that some minor repair work may have been required on some of the wooden joinery around the windows I do not accept that this was at such an extent which would amount to a breach of the standards.
The landlord provided a Healthy Homes assessment report dated 28 March 2022. Except for a heating issue the property was fully compliant. The landlord then promptly addressed the heating issue by installing a further heat pump. The tenants accepted during the hearing that there was a total of 3 heat pumps installed at the property at the start of the tenancy on 27 February 2024. There is no evidence from the tenants that they served the landlord with a 14 day notice to remedy in respect of any maintenance issues during the tenancy.
The tenants claim in respect of failure to maintain, and Healthy Home breaches have not been established. Compensation for fridge in garage:
The tenant seeks compensation on the basis that there was a fridge in the garage which prevented them from parking two cars. They say that they could only park one car in the garage but not two.
The landlord says that they arranged for someone to remove the fridge but that the tenants were moving out at the same time. The tenant emailed the landlord on 6 March 2024 asking if the fridge could be removed as it was taking up space. The landlord responded the next day by email. During the hearing the landlord explained that the owner was not agreeable to having the fridge moved as it was listed in the Tenancy Agreement as a chattel. Analysis:
There is no evidence provided by the tenant in support of this claim which confirms, on the balance of probabilities, that they have suffered a loss of use because of a fridge in the garage. The only evidence provided is a single photograph of a fridge. There is no photographic evidence of the garage, nor is there evidence which confirms the inability to park two cars. Furthermore, the tenants have not filed any evidence in support of the loss suffered.
This claim has not been established.
Because Northside Property Management Limited As Agent For A Hall has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The tenants applied for non-publication of their names and identifying details. Their application has been dismissed therefore I do not grant their request for name suppression.
There is nothing to warrant a departure from the principle of open justice. I do not make any suppression orders regarding the publication of this decision.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5151414 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 50, 17 Georgia Terrace, Albany, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5151414 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 50, 17 Georgia Terrace, Albany, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water arrears?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 arrears?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions