What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4446880 about?

The tribunal order states: Jong In Lee to pay The Rent Shop City Limited As Agent For Janer- Louise

How much money was awarded in case 4446880?

Cleaning: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity: $22.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Loss: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Cushions: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Kitchen utensil…: $153.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4446880?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4446880?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9642536-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4446880 about?

The tribunal order states: Jong In Lee to pay The Rent Shop City Limited As Agent For Janer- Louise

How much money was awarded in case 4446880?

Cleaning: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity: $22.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Loss: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Cushions: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Kitchen utensil…: $153.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4446880?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4446880?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9642536-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 803, 9 Byron Avenue, Takapuna, Auckland 0622 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4446880 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4446880 — net $617.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Electricity	$22.75	Electricity
Replace furnishings: Cushions	$30.00	Replace furnishings: Cushions
Replace furnishings: Kitchen utensils	$153.86	Replace furnishings: Kitchen utensils
Rent loss	$360.00	Rent loss
Cleaning: One hour	$30.00	Cleaning: One hour
Net award	$617.05
Bond	$1,680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$617.05

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4446880 — net $617.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Electricity	$22.75	Electricity
Replace furnishings: Cushions	$30.00	Replace furnishings: Cushions
Replace furnishings: Kitchen utensils	$153.86	Replace furnishings: Kitchen utensils
Rent loss	$360.00	Rent loss
Cleaning: One hour	$30.00	Cleaning: One hour
Net award	$617.05
Bond	$1,680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$617.05

Order

Jong In Lee to pay The Rent Shop City Limited As Agent For Janer- Louise Crowther $617.05 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
Tenant application 4479965 is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (6370954-010) immediately apportioned as follows: The Rent Shop City Limited As Agent For Janer- Louise Crowther: $617.05 Jong In Lee: $1,062.95

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. A court appointed Korean interpreter was in attendance.
The landlord has applied for rent and other compensation, via a partial refund of the bond.
The tenant has applied for compensation and return of his bond.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Landlord application
The landlord sought compensation for loss of rent, electricity, replacement of chattels, and cleaning.
The landlord provided a useful timeline. The record was accepted by the tenant as complete. It recorded: • 18/10/22 – Notice to vacate (by tenant) • 20/10/23 - Viewing booked for 26/10/23 2.30pm – tenant emailed notification, rang the day of and refused access • 27/10/22 – Viewing booked for 2/11/22 2pm – tenant emailed notification, replied asking to move it to 3/11/22 3pm • 28/10/22 – tenant emailed refusing rescheduled viewing, advised me he refused all viewings until after vacate. • 31/10/22 – tenant advised he would allow viewing 9/11/22 3.30pm, booked and notified tenant by email • 9/11/22 – tenant advised he is sick, viewing rescheduled to 16/11/23 3.30pm • 16/11/22 – colleague rang tenant as agreed re viewing, tenant refused, we issued breach letter, tenant advised by email the next day he was still sick. • 19/11/21 – rescheduled viewing to 21/11/22 2pm, tenant advised he sick, too busy and stressed and won’t allow viewing. • 22/11/22 - Cancelled all viewings and lodged Tribunal Application Loss of rent
Section 48 (3)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) permits the landlord entry to the premises, with the prior consent of the tenant, at any reasonable time for the purpose of showing the premises to prospective tenants.
Section 48 (3A) requires the tenant not to withhold his or her consent unreasonably; but the tenant may make the consent subject to any reasonable conditions. Further, it is an unlawful act for any failure by the tenant, without reasonable excuse, to allow the landlord to enter upon the premises in any circumstances in which the landlord is entitled to enter. No unlawful act was claimed by the landlord and no exemplary damage sought but Parliament turned its mind, in deeming such actions as unlawful, to the seriousness of a tenant unreasonably restricting access.
In this instance, the tenant has lodged a counterclaim believing he has been unreasonably treated during this period and it is he who should be compensated, not the landlord. His grounds are considered later under the Tenant application section of this order. Given I dismiss his claims it is reasonable to draw some inference from that regarding the landlord claim.
The landlord produced a series of emails that reflect the timeline and events as recorded. Given the tenant’s stance the landlord only sought a 30min window for showing on a Wednesday. This does not appear excessive and reflects an accommodating approach by the landlord. Separately, an extension to the tenancy, when requested by the tenant, was agreed to by the landlord. At the time of that agreement, a showing date and time had been mutually agreed but later revoked by the tenant. I heard from the tenant that he was a frequent visitor to his ailing mother (generally daily). The tenant also explained a number of health and personal issues that were impacting him near the end of the tenancy. A number of receipts from medical visits were provided but the actual need or illness is not apparent from the receipts.
Balancing the desires and needs of a tenant during a notice period, with the obvious preference of the landlord to minimise any vacancy between tenancies can be a challenge. Here, the tenant was suffering from a number of external issues and some personal health issues.
Fortunately, the communication between the parties was usually via email and these have been provided.
I conclude from a further review of those, and having considered the respective submissions, that the tenant did not have reasonable grounds to withhold his consent for showings. The requests were modest and flexible. It appears during this time he was also visiting his mother frequently and also staying elsewhere at times. Even considering his circumstances, the landlord’s requests do not appear onerous. While I am not totally certain, it appears the tenant may have believed he had an absolute right to refuse showings of the premises. Such a belief was incorrect.
Tenant concerns regarding the presentment of the premises for showing appear unfounded as upon possession returning to the landlord on 2 December 2022, an immediate showing that day had four viewing and two applications, despite the landlord flagging cleanliness issues. A new tenancy formed 13 December 2022. This was the earliest start date of the applications received.
I find the tenant unreasonably withheld consent to landlord showings of the premises. Strong interest at prior, cancelled viewings from prospective tenants, continued and when finally shown, a new tenancy formed quickly.
The landlord sought $660.00 for the vacated period 2-12 December 2022 as compensation for the loss of rent. I do consider the landlord has successfully established grounds for some compensation. However, I consider some vacancy between any tenancy is a reasonable expectation and it would be unfair, given the full circumstances, to award that full sum. I have allowed for a five-day vacant period and award compensation based on six days rent, $360.00.

How much is owed electricity?

The tenancy ended on 1 December 2022.
The final electricity amount owing was $22.75 ($21.41 was claimed in error). I am satisfied the electricity amount is for tenant exclusive use and $22.75 is awarded.

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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The RTA allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
The tenant left most of the premises reasonably clean and tidy, having engaged a commercial cleaner. He produced an invoice for that of $150.00. That invoice records cleaning and carpet cleaning. It seems cheap. The landlord claimed further cleaning was required and sought $300.00 compensation, based on a simple invoice that did not detail the tasks performed. Having reviewed the exit photos, and considering the furnished aspect to this tenancy that may require further cleaning above the reasonable standard expected of a tenant upon exit, I accept there were areas missed but I only award one hour of the invoice (being $30.00) towards commensurate rectification of those.
As noted, the premises was furnished. The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy and replaced: a. Two cushions ($30.00) b. Kitchen utensils (various) ($153.86) – plastic sieve, teaspoon, dessert spoon, table fork, and a fry pan.
Those items were confirmed in the detailed chattel list and were also visible in several entry photos as provided by the landlord. Invoices for the replacement cost to the owner were provided and these confirm the amounts claimed.
The amounts of $30.00 and $153.86 are proven and ordered.

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.
The spyglass in the front door was detached at the end of the tenancy and replaced. It is a very curious damage and the landlord sought $23.00 compensation from the tenant, claiming the damage was more than wear and tear.
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or negligent damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
In this instance, I am not satisfised the landlord has been able to evidence, to the required standard, that this damage is more than wear and tear and the claim is dismissed.
The amounts ordered are proved. Tenant application
The tenant sought the return of his bond and compensation of $3000.00.
In his application he stated he very stressed and uncomfortable because he was separated from his family and “involved in the Police/court”. He was very sick and stated he was looking after his disabled mother almost full time. He claimed the actions of the property manager were very stressful and made it difficult to live. He wrote it affected his life badly and he believes it contributed to his mother's death in mid-December 2022.
There was supporting evidence regarding both the circumstances of his court involvement, and his mother’s medical condition and eventual passing. These are not recounted in detail in this order, but they have been considered.
The bond is dealt with in this order. It is partially returned for the reasons outlined above.
In terms of compensation, the evidential burden rests with the applicant. In this instance, I must be convinced that the behaviours or actions of the landlord were unreasonable and contributed to the impacts on the tenant as claimed.
As I have already determined the landlord took appropriate and reasonable steps in attempting to arrange showings of the premises, I struggle to find landlord accountability for a number of external issues that were no doubt having an impact on the tenant. There is an inconsistency in the stated condition of the tenant during this period, such that no showing could occur, and with his active, ongoing visits and assistance to his mother, some doctor visits notwithstanding.
I do not find the communications from the landlord to be excessive or coercive. I consider it tried to adapt to the tenant’s needs as his circumstances required. The extra time and effort required of the landlord would have caused some frustration for it but that does not appear to have flowed into its interactions with the tenant.
The adverse experiences of the tenant during the notice period are acknowledged but these are not considered to be any responsibility of the landlord or its actions. The tenant claim for compensation is dismissed. Application filing fee
Because The Rent Shop City Limited As Agent For Janer- Louise Crowther has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
The landlord di not seek suppression. The tenant did. Given the circumstances and the lack of success for the tenant in his application, the request for suppression of the tenant’s name is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4446880 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 803, 9 Byron Avenue, Takapuna, Auckland 0622

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4446880 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 803, 9 Byron Avenue, Takapuna, Auckland 0622

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed electricity?

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed electricity?

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