What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4484143 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4484143?

Cleaning: $79.99 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $12.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $183.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4484143?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4484143?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9403128-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4484143 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4484143?

Cleaning: $79.99 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $12.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $183.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4484143?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4484143?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9403128-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4484143 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4484143 — net $405.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 06/01/2023	$80.00	44. At the hearing, the tenant did not dispute the final day’s rent arrears of $80.00, light bulb replacement of $12.50 or the outstanding water rates arrears…
Water rates	$183.28	Water rates
Cleaning	$50.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$79.99	Carpet Cleaning
Light bulbs/batteries	$12.50	Light bulbs/batteries
Net award	$405.77
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$405.77

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
The Bond Centre is to pay $405.77 to [the landlord] and $1,834.23 to [the tenant] from the bond (5151553-006).
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $405.77 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 22 nd June 2023. 4484143, 45016802
The tenancy was from 18 th January 2021 and ended on 6 th January 2023.
The tenant claimed that the termination notice given by the landlord was on false pretences and was without lawful grounds. The tenant sought compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord being retaliatory, breaching the tenant’s quite enjoyment and forcing the termination with lies.
The landlord made a cross-application and applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
On 10th October 2022, the landlord sent the tenant a termination notice dated 7th October 2022 giving the tenant 63 days due to the landlord’s parents coming back to the country to live at the premises. According to the first notice the termination was to be on 28th December 2022.
On 19th October 2022, the landlord sent the tenant a second termination notice stating that the premises was going to be put up for sale and gave the tenant 90 days’ notice. The landlord “added” 27 days to the 63 days’ notice given on 10th October 2022. The new termination date was to be on 8th January 2023.
On 8th December 2022, the tenant gave the landlord 28 days’ notice with the final termination date being noted as 5th January 2023.
On 3rd January 2023, the tenant emailed the landlord informing him that the tenant’s daughter was sick. The tenant sought for one day’s extension of the tenancy to 6th January 2023.
The landlord refused to grant the tenant any extension. To justify the reason for not granting any extensions of the tenancy, the landlord told the tenant that his parents were “staying in hotel and waiting property vacancy” (sic) and that they planned to move in on 7th January 2023 with movers booked for the 6th.
The landlord provided an email booking confirmation for a van hire for the moving for 6th January 2023. The email stated that the booking was made on 15th December 2022 and was for a “Box Body Truck”.
The landlord claimed that he would be charged a cancellation fee if the van hire was to be cancelled.
To see if the tenant could assist, the tenant phoned the van hire company to have the moving date changed without incurring any cancellation fees. The tenant then discovered that the email booking sent by the landlord had been fabricated.
Still wanting to have the tenancy end on the 6 th instead of the 5 th , the tenant contacted the Tenancy Services and found out that as the tenant’s 28 days’ notice was given at 11:03 pm on 8 th December 2022, under section 136(9) Residential 4484143, 45016803 Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), the notice was to be treated as having been given on the following day. That meant the 28th day from the following day made the termination date as 6th January 2023.
At the hearing, the landlord accepted having fabricated the van hire booking by editing the booking date from an older genuine email.
The landlord also accepted that his parents were not waiting at a New Zealand based hotel to move in as soon as the tenant was moved out.
The landlord explained that the landlord used these measures to ensure that the tenant would move out when the tenant said that he would. Was the termination notice given without grounds
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord explained that there were valid reasons for giving the termination notice as he did. Firstly, his father was due to retire in January 2023 and was planning to visit New Zealand from China. But then a sale and purchase agreement involving the landlord fell through and he was being pursued for payment. After a family meeting, the landlord’s family decided to sell the premises.
That was the reason for the 2 termination notices – the first involving family moving in and the second notice involving the sale of the premises.
Then on 16th December 2022, the landlord’s lawyer confirmed that the claim against the landlord for the sale and purchase payment was discontinued by the plaintiff of the claim.
By that time, the tenant had given the landlord the 28 days’ notice for termination.
The landlord contacted Tenancy Services and was told that as the latest termination notice was from the tenant, the termination would not be invalidated.
Acting on that advice, as there was no longer a need to sell the premises, the landlord relisted the premises to be let.
At the hearing, the landlord produced the emails, Court documents and his lawyer’s communications regarding the sale and purchase claims. Having seen the relevant document, I am satisfied that the landlord did not give termination notice without grounds.
In the circumstances, it is totally understandable that the tenant would have believed that the landlord used false pretences to terminate the tenancy. 4484143, 45016804
If the landlord had better communicated his situation before relisting the premises for rent, the tenant may not have felt the need to lodge a claim with the Tribunal.
This was unfortunately a big misunderstanding due to the lack of communication from the landlord’s part.
Although the landlord did forge the van hire information and lied to the tenant about the parents waiting at a hotel, they do not invalidate the notices given at the relevant times by the parties. I do not grant any compensation or exemplary damages as a result. Retaliatory comments
The tenant also claimed that the landlord was always using the “I will go to the Tribunal” card for even the simplest request made by the tenant.
The landlord said that he would have mentioned taking things to the Tribunal about 6 times over the 2 years of tenancy and that it was due to the tenant not fixing the issues as discussed between the parties not because of anything the tenant was seeking from the landlord.
They were related to 14-day reminders sent by the landlord to the tenant and along the lines of “if you feel I am unreasonable, file [a claim with the] Tribunal and claim compensation”.
This is different from the retaliatory provision in section 54 RTA where it deals with the landlord serving a termination notice in retaliation of the tenant exercising the tenant’s rights.
Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Breaching quiet enjoyment
The tenant claimed that the landlord breached the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person".
The tenant said that the landlord was harassing the tenant by chasing the tenant about the carpet cleaning issue after the tenancy had ended. The tenant moved 4484143, 45016805 to a house not too far from the original premises and the landlord had been around in person to chase up compensation from the tenant.
It is understandable that the tenant was upset at the landlord not being giving any leniency at the end of the tenancy when their child was sick, despite having been good rent-paying tenants for the past 2 years. This was during an especially difficult period for the tenants due to family illness involving the tenant’s own parents.
However, I do not find that the tenant has proven that the landlord had breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment under section 38.
This claim is dismissed. Landlord’s cross-application
Having dealt with the tenant’s claims, I now consider the landlord’s cross- application.
At the hearing, the tenant did not dispute the final day’s rent arrears of $80.00, light bulb replacement of $12.50 or the outstanding water rates arrears of $183.28. The final water reading was done on 7 th January 2023.
Accordingly, I order the tenant to pay the landlord the amounts above as ordered. Cleaning, carpet cleaning and weed removal
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e) RTA.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
Having seen the photos, I award the landlord $50.00 for cleaning.
The landlord claimed $424.99 for the damaged carpet. Having seen the photos, I do not find that the carpet was damaged. I accept that there were stubborn spots of colour that could not be fully cleaned despite calling in professional cleaners. I declined to grant compensation for damage but do find that the carpet spots meant that the carpet was not left reasonably clean. I award $79.99 for cleaning.
For weed removal, having seen the photos, I accept the tenant’s explanation that the landlord told him “never mind I will look after it from here.” The pile of weed pulled up by the tenant shows that the tenant could have and would have easily completed the weeding and disposed of the weed had he been told otherwise.
I dismiss the claim regarding the weed removal. Deck paint damage 4484143, 45016806
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.
Having seen the photos of the deck, I find that the deck paint “damage” was no more than fair wear and tear.
I dismiss this claim. Name suppression and filing fee reimbursement
Both parties sought name suppression and I grant the applications accordingly.
As neither party has wholly succeeded, I make no orders reimbursing the filing fees.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4484143 — net $405.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 06/01/2023	$80.00	44. At the hearing, the tenant did not dispute the final day’s rent arrears of $80.00, light bulb replacement of $12.50 or the outstanding water rates arrears…
Water rates	$183.28	Water rates
Cleaning	$50.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$79.99	Carpet Cleaning
Light bulbs/batteries	$12.50	Light bulbs/batteries
Net award	$405.77
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$405.77

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
The Bond Centre is to pay $405.77 to [the landlord] and $1,834.23 to [the tenant] from the bond (5151553-006).
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $405.77 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 22 nd June 2023. 4484143, 45016802
The tenancy was from 18 th January 2021 and ended on 6 th January 2023.
The tenant claimed that the termination notice given by the landlord was on false pretences and was without lawful grounds. The tenant sought compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord being retaliatory, breaching the tenant’s quite enjoyment and forcing the termination with lies.
The landlord made a cross-application and applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
On 10th October 2022, the landlord sent the tenant a termination notice dated 7th October 2022 giving the tenant 63 days due to the landlord’s parents coming back to the country to live at the premises. According to the first notice the termination was to be on 28th December 2022.
On 19th October 2022, the landlord sent the tenant a second termination notice stating that the premises was going to be put up for sale and gave the tenant 90 days’ notice. The landlord “added” 27 days to the 63 days’ notice given on 10th October 2022. The new termination date was to be on 8th January 2023.
On 8th December 2022, the tenant gave the landlord 28 days’ notice with the final termination date being noted as 5th January 2023.
On 3rd January 2023, the tenant emailed the landlord informing him that the tenant’s daughter was sick. The tenant sought for one day’s extension of the tenancy to 6th January 2023.
The landlord refused to grant the tenant any extension. To justify the reason for not granting any extensions of the tenancy, the landlord told the tenant that his parents were “staying in hotel and waiting property vacancy” (sic) and that they planned to move in on 7th January 2023 with movers booked for the 6th.
The landlord provided an email booking confirmation for a van hire for the moving for 6th January 2023. The email stated that the booking was made on 15th December 2022 and was for a “Box Body Truck”.
The landlord claimed that he would be charged a cancellation fee if the van hire was to be cancelled.
To see if the tenant could assist, the tenant phoned the van hire company to have the moving date changed without incurring any cancellation fees. The tenant then discovered that the email booking sent by the landlord had been fabricated.
Still wanting to have the tenancy end on the 6 th instead of the 5 th , the tenant contacted the Tenancy Services and found out that as the tenant’s 28 days’ notice was given at 11:03 pm on 8 th December 2022, under section 136(9) Residential 4484143, 45016803 Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), the notice was to be treated as having been given on the following day. That meant the 28th day from the following day made the termination date as 6th January 2023.
At the hearing, the landlord accepted having fabricated the van hire booking by editing the booking date from an older genuine email.
The landlord also accepted that his parents were not waiting at a New Zealand based hotel to move in as soon as the tenant was moved out.
The landlord explained that the landlord used these measures to ensure that the tenant would move out when the tenant said that he would. Was the termination notice given without grounds
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord explained that there were valid reasons for giving the termination notice as he did. Firstly, his father was due to retire in January 2023 and was planning to visit New Zealand from China. But then a sale and purchase agreement involving the landlord fell through and he was being pursued for payment. After a family meeting, the landlord’s family decided to sell the premises.
That was the reason for the 2 termination notices – the first involving family moving in and the second notice involving the sale of the premises.
Then on 16th December 2022, the landlord’s lawyer confirmed that the claim against the landlord for the sale and purchase payment was discontinued by the plaintiff of the claim.
By that time, the tenant had given the landlord the 28 days’ notice for termination.
The landlord contacted Tenancy Services and was told that as the latest termination notice was from the tenant, the termination would not be invalidated.
Acting on that advice, as there was no longer a need to sell the premises, the landlord relisted the premises to be let.
At the hearing, the landlord produced the emails, Court documents and his lawyer’s communications regarding the sale and purchase claims. Having seen the relevant document, I am satisfied that the landlord did not give termination notice without grounds.
In the circumstances, it is totally understandable that the tenant would have believed that the landlord used false pretences to terminate the tenancy. 4484143, 45016804
If the landlord had better communicated his situation before relisting the premises for rent, the tenant may not have felt the need to lodge a claim with the Tribunal.
This was unfortunately a big misunderstanding due to the lack of communication from the landlord’s part.
Although the landlord did forge the van hire information and lied to the tenant about the parents waiting at a hotel, they do not invalidate the notices given at the relevant times by the parties. I do not grant any compensation or exemplary damages as a result. Retaliatory comments
The tenant also claimed that the landlord was always using the “I will go to the Tribunal” card for even the simplest request made by the tenant.
The landlord said that he would have mentioned taking things to the Tribunal about 6 times over the 2 years of tenancy and that it was due to the tenant not fixing the issues as discussed between the parties not because of anything the tenant was seeking from the landlord.
They were related to 14-day reminders sent by the landlord to the tenant and along the lines of “if you feel I am unreasonable, file [a claim with the] Tribunal and claim compensation”.
This is different from the retaliatory provision in section 54 RTA where it deals with the landlord serving a termination notice in retaliation of the tenant exercising the tenant’s rights.
Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Breaching quiet enjoyment
The tenant claimed that the landlord breached the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person".
The tenant said that the landlord was harassing the tenant by chasing the tenant about the carpet cleaning issue after the tenancy had ended. The tenant moved 4484143, 45016805 to a house not too far from the original premises and the landlord had been around in person to chase up compensation from the tenant.
It is understandable that the tenant was upset at the landlord not being giving any leniency at the end of the tenancy when their child was sick, despite having been good rent-paying tenants for the past 2 years. This was during an especially difficult period for the tenants due to family illness involving the tenant’s own parents.
However, I do not find that the tenant has proven that the landlord had breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment under section 38.
This claim is dismissed. Landlord’s cross-application
Having dealt with the tenant’s claims, I now consider the landlord’s cross- application.
At the hearing, the tenant did not dispute the final day’s rent arrears of $80.00, light bulb replacement of $12.50 or the outstanding water rates arrears of $183.28. The final water reading was done on 7 th January 2023.
Accordingly, I order the tenant to pay the landlord the amounts above as ordered. Cleaning, carpet cleaning and weed removal
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e) RTA.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
Having seen the photos, I award the landlord $50.00 for cleaning.
The landlord claimed $424.99 for the damaged carpet. Having seen the photos, I do not find that the carpet was damaged. I accept that there were stubborn spots of colour that could not be fully cleaned despite calling in professional cleaners. I declined to grant compensation for damage but do find that the carpet spots meant that the carpet was not left reasonably clean. I award $79.99 for cleaning.
For weed removal, having seen the photos, I accept the tenant’s explanation that the landlord told him “never mind I will look after it from here.” The pile of weed pulled up by the tenant shows that the tenant could have and would have easily completed the weeding and disposed of the weed had he been told otherwise.
I dismiss the claim regarding the weed removal. Deck paint damage 4484143, 45016806
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.
Having seen the photos of the deck, I find that the deck paint “damage” was no more than fair wear and tear.
I dismiss this claim. Name suppression and filing fee reimbursement
Both parties sought name suppression and I grant the applications accordingly.
As neither party has wholly succeeded, I make no orders reimbursing the filing fees.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4484143 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4484143 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions