What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5277899?

The tribunal order states: Julika Hood and Alexander Sharman to pay Kenneth Wong $922.00 from the

How much money was awarded in case 5277899?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $895.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5277899?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5277899?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12335560-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5277899?

The tribunal order states: Julika Hood and Alexander Sharman to pay Kenneth Wong $922.00 from the

How much money was awarded in case 5277899?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $895.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5277899?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5277899?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12335560-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1 England Street, Freemans Bay, Auckland 1011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5277899 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5277899 — net $922.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$895.00	The claim for rent arrears is proven. Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$922.00
Bond	$3,580.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$922.00

Order

Julika Hood and Alexander Sharman to pay Kenneth Wong $922.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,580.00 (3033991-021) immediately apportioned as follows: Kenneth Wong: $922.00 Julika Hood and Alexander Sharman: $2,658.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote teleconference.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 25 May 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted the landlord’s rent ledger I am satisfied that the tenants are responsible for this debt.
The tenants accept that they are liable for the rent debt based on their fixed term tenancy agreement.
The claim for rent arrears is proven.

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. 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.
The landlord claims reimbursement of an AllClear invoice dated 15 May 2025 for $574.94. They say that the tenants lived in the property for approximately 8 months before they raised a concern in respect of mould.
On 6 May 2025 the tenants messaged the landlord stating that they had been unwell for a few weeks. They assumed it was a cold. They stated that they noticed mould on the ceilings in some of the rooms. The tenants stated that they obtained a dehumidifier however their doctor suggested organising a mould inspection. The tenants then requested a mould inspection from the landlord.
The tenants have not filed their own application in respect of any issues with the property.
Photographs were provided of the interior of the property. The photographs highlighted a number of plants which the landlord says contributed to the mould. The landlord also advised that the All Clear report suggesting it was the plants which caused the mould.
The tenants provided a series of listing photographs taken in September 2024, just prior to the start of the tenancy. The tenants stated that mould on the ceiling is apparent from these photographs prior to the start of the tenancy.
The landlord provided a GForce Healthy Homes Assessment dated 27 August 2024 confirming that the property was fully compliant. The landlord has not provided an entry inspection report with his application. There are also no routine inspection reports filed with the landlord’s application.
The AllClear report confirmed a large number of plants inside the premises. The report also noted that the property was otherwise in good condition with no obvious signs of leaks or damage.
I find that the AllClear report is inconclusive in respect of the cause of the mould. While the report identified active mould growth within the kitchen and dining room it also confirms that it did not include a comprehensive investigation to identify the source of the mould growth. The report only noted that the plants are likely increasing moisture levels.
Based on the evidence before me I am not satisfied that the tenants should be liable for the cost of this report. The tenants were merely bringing the existence of mould on the ceiling to the landlord’s attention, as is their obligation. It then becomes a landlord obligation to investigate and remedy. There is no evidence filed with the landlord’s application which satisfies me, on the balance of probabilities that the tenants are responsible for the ceiling mould.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for reimbursement of the AllClear invoice for $574.94 is dismissed.
Because Kenneth Wong has had some success with his application I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5277899 — net $922.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$895.00	The claim for rent arrears is proven. Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$922.00
Bond	$3,580.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$922.00

Order

Julika Hood and Alexander Sharman to pay Kenneth Wong $922.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,580.00 (3033991-021) immediately apportioned as follows: Kenneth Wong: $922.00 Julika Hood and Alexander Sharman: $2,658.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote teleconference.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 25 May 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted the landlord’s rent ledger I am satisfied that the tenants are responsible for this debt.
The tenants accept that they are liable for the rent debt based on their fixed term tenancy agreement.
The claim for rent arrears is proven.

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. 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.
The landlord claims reimbursement of an AllClear invoice dated 15 May 2025 for $574.94. They say that the tenants lived in the property for approximately 8 months before they raised a concern in respect of mould.
On 6 May 2025 the tenants messaged the landlord stating that they had been unwell for a few weeks. They assumed it was a cold. They stated that they noticed mould on the ceilings in some of the rooms. The tenants stated that they obtained a dehumidifier however their doctor suggested organising a mould inspection. The tenants then requested a mould inspection from the landlord.
The tenants have not filed their own application in respect of any issues with the property.
Photographs were provided of the interior of the property. The photographs highlighted a number of plants which the landlord says contributed to the mould. The landlord also advised that the All Clear report suggesting it was the plants which caused the mould.
The tenants provided a series of listing photographs taken in September 2024, just prior to the start of the tenancy. The tenants stated that mould on the ceiling is apparent from these photographs prior to the start of the tenancy.
The landlord provided a GForce Healthy Homes Assessment dated 27 August 2024 confirming that the property was fully compliant. The landlord has not provided an entry inspection report with his application. There are also no routine inspection reports filed with the landlord’s application.
The AllClear report confirmed a large number of plants inside the premises. The report also noted that the property was otherwise in good condition with no obvious signs of leaks or damage.
I find that the AllClear report is inconclusive in respect of the cause of the mould. While the report identified active mould growth within the kitchen and dining room it also confirms that it did not include a comprehensive investigation to identify the source of the mould growth. The report only noted that the plants are likely increasing moisture levels.
Based on the evidence before me I am not satisfied that the tenants should be liable for the cost of this report. The tenants were merely bringing the existence of mould on the ceiling to the landlord’s attention, as is their obligation. It then becomes a landlord obligation to investigate and remedy. There is no evidence filed with the landlord’s application which satisfies me, on the balance of probabilities that the tenants are responsible for the ceiling mould.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for reimbursement of the AllClear invoice for $574.94 is dismissed.
Because Kenneth Wong has had some success with his application I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5277899 — Rent arrears at 1 England Street, Freemans Bay, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5277899 — Rent arrears at 1 England Street, Freemans Bay, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions