What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4556858?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 (5356068-021) to Oliver

How much money was awarded in case 4556858?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4556858?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4556858?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9734046-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4556858?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 (5356068-021) to Oliver

How much money was awarded in case 4556858?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4556858?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4556858?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9734046-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1215, 72 Nelson Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4556858 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 (5356068-021) to Oliver Patrick Samuel Van Arts and Haylin Frank Van Arts immediately.

Excella Property Rentals Limited’s (as An Agent For Yu Zhuang And Xiaohui Zhou) application is dismissed.

The remaining claims in Oliver Patrick Samuel Van Arts and Haylin Frank Van Arts’ application are dismissed.

Reasons

This matter relates to a tenancy which started on 27 January 2022 and ended on 31 March 2023.

The landlord has claimed compensation for cleaning and damages, and a refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

The tenants have filed a cross application disputing the landlord’s claims and claiming compensation for a faulty fridge freezer and loss of food during the tenancy, and a full refund of the bond.

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. In general, the onus or burden of proving a particular claim rests with the party who is making that claim. The standard of proof, or level of evidence, required is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the party proving the claim must establish with evidence that their claim is “more probable than not” or “more likely than not” correct.

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.

I will address the issues in turn. Although I have reviewed all the parties’ evidence and submissions, I have only referenced what I find necessary to give context to my decision. The landlord’s application

Did the tenant breach their legal obligations?

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 (“RTA”).

A tenant has an obligation not to intentionally or carelessly damage the property. 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 landlord claims the following: cleaning and carpet stains treatment ($287.50), chair repair due to missing special screw ($95.00), and replacement mattress protector ($40.00), totalling $442.94.

The landlord says the tenants did not return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition after vacating the property. The property manager submitted that the property was mouldy (including vertical blinds, walls, and window frames), the oven was dirty, there were condensation marks and mildew on walls, lots of fly spots on the ceiling and stains in the carpet.

In response, the tenants assert that the property was cleaned thoroughly and certainly met the reasonably clean and tidy standard. The tenants queried the photographs relied on by the landlord and produced their own photographs in support of their position. The tenants found the landlord/property manager inconsistent dismissing similar minor issues at the start of the tenancy as acceptable. The tenants stated that the purported stain in the carpet was merely a water mark which had completely dried when the keys were returned.

In terms of the claim for cleaning, the words ‘reasonably clean and reasonably tidy’ do not impose an absolute standard. This standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances. 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. This claim must be seen in the overall context of the cleanliness and tidiness of the premises at the end of the tenancy.

Although clearly some areas needed addressing to bring it up to a clean and tidy standard, these were best addressed with a “commercial clean” rather than a tenant’s effort. It is of course not unusual for a landlord to occasionally arrange a commercial clean, irrespective of the tenant’s efforts, as part of normal property maintenance. The claim for cleaning is dismissed.

I decline the claim for the chair repair. A missing screw does not of itself carry a presumption of compensation where there is no link to the tenant directly causing the problem. There was no evidence beyond the invoice as to the probable cause. Nor was it proven that this was not simply due to fair wear and tear and/or a general maintenance issue.

In my view the single mattress protector will have depreciated during the tenancy to the point of having no residual value to compensate for. This claim is therefore dismissed. The tenant’s application

Did the landlord breach its obligation to maintain the fridge freezer?

A landlord must provide and maintain the premises (including chattels) in a reasonable state of repair (see section 45 RTA).The landlord also has an obligation to properly investigate and respond to any issues arising within a reasonable time.

The tenants submitted that during the tenancy there was a faulty bar size fridge freezer. This was the only fridge for the property. It was claimed by the tenants that the property manager was aware that the freezer box iced up making it impossible to store any frozen food. The tenants submitted that the property manager was emailed on 3 occasions saying the fridge was faulty and that it was extremely unpractical to expect a tenant to drain it every couple of months and that they had loss of food and were not able to use it. The tenants felt the property manager essentially put the issue back on them, and gave up after feeling it was going nowhere due to the property manager’s unreasonable approach. The tenants submit that a new or second-hand fridge would have resolved it and made it useable to have food in it.

On the other hand, the landlord denies that the fridge freezer was faulty. The property manager considered the issue was due to the tenant failing to defrost the fridge freezer every 3-4 months. The property manager noted the tenant had been given specific instructions regarding this at the start to ensure the fridge kept functioning properly. The property manager felt she had been more than willing to address the issue, but the tenant had failed to cooperate.

There is no evidence from a qualified person regarding the condition of the fridge freezer and whether it was in fact faulty. Given the conflicting views and lack of corroborating evidence, I find this claim has not been proved to the required standard. This claim is therefore dismissed. Formal complaint against the property manager

The tenants submitted that they would like to make a formal complaint against the property manager’s actions as being unreasonable and unprofessional. It was noted the property was tenanted for 1 year with full rent paid on time every week at $15,600 for 12 months. The bond of $1,200 bond was paid upfront and has not been refunded.

While I note that the tenants were clearly upset with the property manager’s action, the concerns raised relate to an issue which is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (ie. service delivery complaints which would more appropriately be dealt with directly with the property management company). The Tribunal is not a forum for general complaint. The claim is therefore dismissed. Summary

The landlord’s application is dismissed.

The bond is refunded in full to the tenants. The tenants’ remaining claims are dismissed.

As neither party has been wholly successful with their claims, I decline to order either party to reimburse the filing fee.

Regrettably, there has been a delay in sending this order to the parties. I mistakenly thought the order had been sent some time ago. I apologise for this oversight and any inconvenience this may have caused the parties.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 (5356068-021) to Oliver Patrick Samuel Van Arts and Haylin Frank Van Arts immediately.

Excella Property Rentals Limited’s (as An Agent For Yu Zhuang And Xiaohui Zhou) application is dismissed.

The remaining claims in Oliver Patrick Samuel Van Arts and Haylin Frank Van Arts’ application are dismissed.

Reasons

This matter relates to a tenancy which started on 27 January 2022 and ended on 31 March 2023.

The landlord has claimed compensation for cleaning and damages, and a refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

The tenants have filed a cross application disputing the landlord’s claims and claiming compensation for a faulty fridge freezer and loss of food during the tenancy, and a full refund of the bond.

Did the tenant breach their legal obligations?

The landlord claims the following: cleaning and carpet stains treatment ($287.50), chair repair due to missing special screw ($95.00), and replacement mattress protector ($40.00), totalling $442.94.

Did the landlord breach its obligation to maintain the fridge freezer?

The landlord’s application is dismissed.

The bond is refunded in full to the tenants. The tenants’ remaining claims are dismissed.

As neither party has been wholly successful with their claims, I decline to order either party to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4556858 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 1215, 72 Nelson Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4556858 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 1215, 72 Nelson Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant breach their legal obligations?

Did the landlord breach its obligation to maintain the fridge freezer?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant breach their legal obligations?

Did the landlord breach its obligation to maintain the fridge freezer?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions