How much money was awarded in case 4568110?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $138.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4568110?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4568110?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9171013-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4568110?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $138.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4568110?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4568110?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9171013-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4568110 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4568110 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4568110 — net $38.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$100.00		Carpet Cleaning
Repairs and paint	$138.00		Repairs and paint
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry		$200.00	Unlawful entry
Total award	$238.00	$200.00
Net award	$38.00
Bond	$1,680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$38.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

The tenants must pay the landlord $38 from the bond calculated as set out in the table below.

The landlord’s claim for damage to an electrical socket is dismissed.

The tenants’ claim for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to comply with their bond obligations is dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Wolfbrook Property Management Limited as Agent for Trustees of Yurong Xu Family Trust: $38.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,642.00

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing. Ms Reid represented the landlord.

The tenants claim the bond and exemplary damages for unlawful entry to the premises by the landlord and the landlord’s failure to comply with their bond obligations.

The landlord cross claims for compensation following the end of the tenancy. Tenants’ Claims Bond Obligations

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.

The tenants paid a bond for their previous tenancy with the landlords, and it was lodged at the Bond Centre. It should have been transferred to the new tenancy but wasn’t. It remained with the Bond Centre under the previous tenancy.

The tenants signed a bond form but not the bond transfer form that the landlord sent to them. The landlord did not follow up on it.

I doubt whether the landlord has been in breach of their bond obligation in this case because they did not receive a bond for this tenancy. The bond remained at the Bond Centre. It should have been transferred, but the Act does not make a failure to do so an unlawful act.

If I am wrong about that, this is not a case that warrants an award of exemplary damages. It was, at worst, an administrative slip and there was, in my view, some fault on both sides. The tenants did not lose the protection of the bond held by the Bond Centre and it could not have been paid to the landlord without their consent or an order of the Tribunal. The claim is therefore dismissed. Unlawful Entry

A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00.

The landlord arranged for a contractor to attend at the premises to fix the front door handle and gave them the tenants’ telephone number so they could arrange a time to attend to it.

The contractor did not deal with it and when the landlord followed up on it, they gave the contractor the door code so that they could attend without the need for the tenants to be there. The landlord said that they were concerned about the security of the premises, but they agreed at the hearing that the lack of the door handle did not make the premises any less secure.

The contractors duly attended at the premises without giving the tenants any notice. As it happened, the tenants had already moved out of the premises by then and they were in the process of cleaning the premises. They were there when the contractor arrived and tried to enter the premises. The tenancy at that time was current.

The tenants said that they were upset by this breach of their privacy, and it made them anxious that there may have been other times when it had been breached.

In the circumstances, it was not a serious incident. The tenants had moved out and none of their belongings were in the premises. But they were still the tenants, and they were entitled to the protections of the Act. The rules regarding entry by the landlord are important safeguards for tenants and it is important that they are observed. In my view, there should be an award of exemplary damages in this case to mark the Tribunal’s disapproval of the landlord’s actions. An award of $200 is appropriate. Landlord’s Claims Painting

There were various minor chips and dents to these new premises made during the tenancy. In some cases, the tenants repaired and painted them, but the result was not satisfactory.

The tenants said that most of the damage was fair wear and tear. That may be arguable in relation to some of the more minor damage but, by and large, I accept that the damage is beyond fair and tear. When a tenant carries out repairs themselves, they must ensure that the work is completed to an acceptable standard. That was not done in this case.

The cost of the repairs and painting is reasonable and so I have awarded it in full. Carpet Cleaning

The tenancy agreement contained a “Pet Clause” that required the tenant to have the carpet professionally clean at the end of the tenancy if the tenant had a pet on the premises. In this case the tenants had a dog.

Such clauses are contrary to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 unless the Tribunal approves them. I approve the clause in this case. Dogs generally shed hair and imbue an odour to carpet, and I think it is reasonable to require a tenant to professionally clean carpet after having a dog on the premises.

In any case, I accept the landlord’s evidence that the carpet needed professional cleaning at the end of the tenancy due to dog hair in the carpet. I accept that the tenants thoroughly vacuumed the carpet, and that the landlord did not raise any concerns at the end of the tenancy concerning the carpet. But in my experience, only a professional clean will remove pet hair and odour.

The evidence did not prove that there were urine stains that needed treatment. I have therefore awarded $100 for carpet cleaning not $150 as claimed. Power Socket

A power socket in the premises was burned after the tenants’ plugged their vacuum cleaner into it.

The damage occurred during the tenancy and so the tenant must disprove liability for it.

The tenants said that they simply plugged in their vacuum cleaner to the socket and turned it on and there was a bang. The fuse tripped and their vacuum cleaner did not work afterwards.

That explanation is enough, on its face, to disprove liability for the damage. The tenants could not have foreseen that the socket would be damaged by their actions. The landlord did not have any evidence to the contrary and so the claim must be dismissed. Filing Fees

Both sides have had some success and so I make no award of the filing fees. Bond

The bond has been split to give effect to my order. Suppression

The tenants have had some success and the awards in the landlord’s favour were reasonably contested by the tenants. There is little public interest in the tenants’ names being published and it could have an adverse effect on them. I have therefore granted them name suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4568110 — net $38.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$100.00		Carpet Cleaning
Repairs and paint	$138.00		Repairs and paint
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry		$200.00	Unlawful entry
Total award	$238.00	$200.00
Net award	$38.00
Bond	$1,680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$38.00