What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5201251?

The tribunal order states: Vahab Asgari must pay Rio Stevenson $3,894.02 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5201251?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,846.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $501.02 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5201251?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5201251?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12134033-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5201251?

The tribunal order states: Vahab Asgari must pay Rio Stevenson $3,894.02 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5201251?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,846.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $501.02 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5201251?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5201251?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12134033-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 7, 533 Manukau Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5201251 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5201251 — net $3,894.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 February 2025	$5,846.00	Rent arrears to 18 February 2025
Water rates	$501.02	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,894.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,894.02

Order

Vahab Asgari must pay Rio Stevenson $3,894.02 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 (3320675-013) to Rio Stevenson immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The tenant did not seek to be admitted to the video hearing or answer any of the telephone calls made at the scheduled time on the number provided to the Tribunal.
The tenant has been served by email which is an address for service on the tenancy agreement.
Because I am satisfied the tenant has been served notice of the hearing in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 and the tenant has not requested an adjournment, the hearing was conducted in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, damages, reimbursement of the filing fee and refund of the bond.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord stated that the tenancy ended by agreement on 18 February 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove that $5,846.00 was owing for rent arrears at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord stated that $501.02 was owing for unpaid water rates at the end of the tenancy. I note that no water rates invoices have been produced in support of this claim. However, I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of this simple claim, and I am satisfied that on the balance of probabilities it is proved.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is claiming $99.00 for cleaning costs and $667.00 for mould removal.
The landlord did not produce any photographs in support of these two claims prior to the hearing. Several hours after the hearing, four photographs were sent to the registry which show extensive mould on the ceiling of the bathroom, on the ceiling above a window, and on a breeze-block wall.
Disputes between landlords and tenants as to whether premises have been left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of a tenancy are common. “Reasonably clean and tidy” is open to broad interpretation. A reliable way to make a determination on these claims is to look at the information in support of the claim, that is, to look at photographs. The onus is on an applicant to prove their claims. There is insufficient information for me to determine on the balance of probabilities that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. For this reason I cannot find this claim proved.
The landlord stated that mould builds up in the bathroom and then in the rest of the house because the bathroom does not have an extraction fan to remove the steam and condensation. An extraction fan is required under the Healthy Homes ventilation standard, but the landlord stated these premises have an exemption for an extraction fan in the bathroom. A Healthy Homes Assessment was not produced as part of the application. Presumably the exemption is because it is not reasonably practicable to install an extraction fan, but no information was given as to why that is. The landlord stated that the tenant has not been adequately ventilating the premises. No information was provided to explain how this has been determined.
I consider that it is reasonable to conclude that these premises have a problem with the build up of condensation and with ventilation. I do not automatically conclude, or accept the landlord’s submission that these problem are the tenants responsibility for remedying. I consider it possible that the tenant has acted reasonably in trying to mitigate the problem of condensation but has been unsuccessful. This is ultimately the reason why there is a Healthy Homes ventilation standard that requires extraction fans in bathrooms.
A landlord is responsible for ensuring a premises complies with the Healthy Homes standards, and when this cannot be achieved, it is reasonable that they mitigate the problems that this causes.
Because of the lack of information produced prior to the hearing, it was not possible to delve further into this problem with the landlord during the hearing. The onus of proving this claim on the balance of probabilities falls to the landlord. It has not been met. In the circumstances, I am not persuaded the cost of remedying the mould build up in these premises should fall to the tenant. This claim is not proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claims the tenant damaged a two – three year old shower rose during the tenancy. The landlord is claiming $293.50 compensation.
No photographs were produced showing the broken shower rose and no information was produced on how the shower rose was broken.
On the information before me I am not convinced to the standard of on the balance of probabilities that the shower rose was only two – three years old, or that the damage was careless or intentional rather than caused by fair wear and tear. This claim is not proved.
Because Rio Stevenson has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5201251 — net $3,894.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 February 2025	$5,846.00	Rent arrears to 18 February 2025
Water rates	$501.02	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,894.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,894.02

Order

Vahab Asgari must pay Rio Stevenson $3,894.02 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 (3320675-013) to Rio Stevenson immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The tenant did not seek to be admitted to the video hearing or answer any of the telephone calls made at the scheduled time on the number provided to the Tribunal.
The tenant has been served by email which is an address for service on the tenancy agreement.
Because I am satisfied the tenant has been served notice of the hearing in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 and the tenant has not requested an adjournment, the hearing was conducted in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, damages, reimbursement of the filing fee and refund of the bond.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord stated that the tenancy ended by agreement on 18 February 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove that $5,846.00 was owing for rent arrears at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord stated that $501.02 was owing for unpaid water rates at the end of the tenancy. I note that no water rates invoices have been produced in support of this claim. However, I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of this simple claim, and I am satisfied that on the balance of probabilities it is proved.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is claiming $99.00 for cleaning costs and $667.00 for mould removal.
The landlord did not produce any photographs in support of these two claims prior to the hearing. Several hours after the hearing, four photographs were sent to the registry which show extensive mould on the ceiling of the bathroom, on the ceiling above a window, and on a breeze-block wall.
Disputes between landlords and tenants as to whether premises have been left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of a tenancy are common. “Reasonably clean and tidy” is open to broad interpretation. A reliable way to make a determination on these claims is to look at the information in support of the claim, that is, to look at photographs. The onus is on an applicant to prove their claims. There is insufficient information for me to determine on the balance of probabilities that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. For this reason I cannot find this claim proved.
The landlord stated that mould builds up in the bathroom and then in the rest of the house because the bathroom does not have an extraction fan to remove the steam and condensation. An extraction fan is required under the Healthy Homes ventilation standard, but the landlord stated these premises have an exemption for an extraction fan in the bathroom. A Healthy Homes Assessment was not produced as part of the application. Presumably the exemption is because it is not reasonably practicable to install an extraction fan, but no information was given as to why that is. The landlord stated that the tenant has not been adequately ventilating the premises. No information was provided to explain how this has been determined.
I consider that it is reasonable to conclude that these premises have a problem with the build up of condensation and with ventilation. I do not automatically conclude, or accept the landlord’s submission that these problem are the tenants responsibility for remedying. I consider it possible that the tenant has acted reasonably in trying to mitigate the problem of condensation but has been unsuccessful. This is ultimately the reason why there is a Healthy Homes ventilation standard that requires extraction fans in bathrooms.
A landlord is responsible for ensuring a premises complies with the Healthy Homes standards, and when this cannot be achieved, it is reasonable that they mitigate the problems that this causes.
Because of the lack of information produced prior to the hearing, it was not possible to delve further into this problem with the landlord during the hearing. The onus of proving this claim on the balance of probabilities falls to the landlord. It has not been met. In the circumstances, I am not persuaded the cost of remedying the mould build up in these premises should fall to the tenant. This claim is not proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claims the tenant damaged a two – three year old shower rose during the tenancy. The landlord is claiming $293.50 compensation.
No photographs were produced showing the broken shower rose and no information was produced on how the shower rose was broken.
On the information before me I am not convinced to the standard of on the balance of probabilities that the shower rose was only two – three years old, or that the damage was careless or intentional rather than caused by fair wear and tear. This claim is not proved.
Because Rio Stevenson has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5201251 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 7, 533 Manukau Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5201251 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 7, 533 Manukau Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions