What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4571149 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 4571149?

Cleaning: $20.99 awarded to landlord; Compensation: - Ventilation Standard: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $105.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4571149?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4571149?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9270232-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4571149 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 4571149?

Cleaning: $20.99 awarded to landlord; Compensation: - Ventilation Standard: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $105.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4571149?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4571149?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9270232-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4571149 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4571149 — net $1,893.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$105.50		Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning: Driveway	$20.99		Cleaning: Driveway
Compensation: - Ventilation Standard		$2,000.00	- Ventilation Standard
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$126.49	$2,020.44
Net award		$1,893.95
Bond		$1,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,893.95

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Sharmayne Finn must pay [The tenant/s] $1,893.95 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Howorth owns the property with Ms Finn and also attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and compensation for a range of alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligations.
The landlord said it also had claims against the bond but had not made an application. See s22B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). However, the tenant advised the Tribunal that he could respond to the landlord’s claims at the hearing, so I allowed an oral application by the landlord for driveway degreaser ($20.99), lawn repairs ($105.50) and cleaning ($387.27). Tenant Claims
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its repair and maintenance obligations, did not comply with Healthy Homes Standards and failed to give proper notice of a rent increase.
The current tenant was a joint tenant with a [Tenant 1] under a tenancy agreement that started in 2019. The premises and landlord were the same as this tenancy. In early 2022, [Tenant 1] gave notice to the terminate the 2019 tenancy.
[Tenant 2] wanted to stay at the property. There was confusion between [Tenant 2] and the landlord regarding the correct procedure to follow, with each claiming to have received conflicting advice.
I find that the 2019 tenancy was terminated. [Tenant 2] entered into a new written tenancy agreement with the landlord dated 21 April 2022, for a weekly rent of $350. That was more than the amount paid under the 2019 tenancy. The landlord was not required to give 60 days’ notice of a rent increase; the previous tenancy was terminated, and this was a new tenancy with different parties.
The bond was increased at that time, but the bond information was not updated to remove [Tenant 1]’s name. I have been provided with a bond transfer form and other evidence to confirm that [Tenant 1] has no interest in the bond currently held for these premises.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The landlord acknowledged that it did not comply with the ventilation standard in relation to either kitchen or bathroom extraction. The landlord has committed an unlawful act. It claims to have misunderstood the effective date, focussing on the 2024 cut-off date.
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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The tenant described the property as damp, as a result of the lack of ventilation. He said the bathroom became mouldy. I award $2,000 compensation for loss of amenity, effectively representing a rent reduction of about $35 per week from April 2022 to the end of the tenancy.
I do not award exemplary damages. While the landlord should have been aware of the correct compliance date, I do find that the landlord has acted intentionally by failing to install extraction within 90 days of the start of this tenancy.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Under s45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant has the onus of establishing its claims and must provide evidence to prove the allegations.
The tenant’s claims related to a smoke alarm, hot water tap in the kitchen and general complaints regarding the condition of the property. The tenant referred to 14-day notices sent by post that the landlord said it did not receive. The landlord also said that the placement of the smoke alarm complied with the regulations. There was conflicting evidence about the where the smoke alarm was.
Overall, the tenant’s evidence did not establish that it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached its obligations, except in relation to Healthy Homes Standards. The tenant’s other claims are dismissed.

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 landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The standard is reasonably clean and tidy. It is not pristine or perfect, it is not commercially clean. The tenant accepted a claim for degreaser for the driveway.
The landlord established the lawn repairs are required following the end of the tenancy and provided a quote for $105.50. The work will be done in spring.
The landlord did not establish its claim for cleaning costs. Both parties provided evidence of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The property appeared to be reasonably clean and tidy. Further, the landlord did not establish that it has, or will, incur the cleaning costs. The landlord provided a quote and said the cleaning hasn’t been done as renovations work is being carried out at the property. The claim for cleaning costs is dismissed.
As the tenant was partially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the filing fee and granted his request for suppression of his details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4571149 — net $1,893.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$105.50		Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning: Driveway	$20.99		Cleaning: Driveway
Compensation: - Ventilation Standard		$2,000.00	- Ventilation Standard
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$126.49	$2,020.44
Net award		$1,893.95
Bond		$1,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,893.95

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Sharmayne Finn must pay [The tenant/s] $1,893.95 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Howorth owns the property with Ms Finn and also attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and compensation for a range of alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligations.
The landlord said it also had claims against the bond but had not made an application. See s22B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). However, the tenant advised the Tribunal that he could respond to the landlord’s claims at the hearing, so I allowed an oral application by the landlord for driveway degreaser ($20.99), lawn repairs ($105.50) and cleaning ($387.27). Tenant Claims
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its repair and maintenance obligations, did not comply with Healthy Homes Standards and failed to give proper notice of a rent increase.
The current tenant was a joint tenant with a [Tenant 1] under a tenancy agreement that started in 2019. The premises and landlord were the same as this tenancy. In early 2022, [Tenant 1] gave notice to the terminate the 2019 tenancy.
[Tenant 2] wanted to stay at the property. There was confusion between [Tenant 2] and the landlord regarding the correct procedure to follow, with each claiming to have received conflicting advice.
I find that the 2019 tenancy was terminated. [Tenant 2] entered into a new written tenancy agreement with the landlord dated 21 April 2022, for a weekly rent of $350. That was more than the amount paid under the 2019 tenancy. The landlord was not required to give 60 days’ notice of a rent increase; the previous tenancy was terminated, and this was a new tenancy with different parties.
The bond was increased at that time, but the bond information was not updated to remove [Tenant 1]’s name. I have been provided with a bond transfer form and other evidence to confirm that [Tenant 1] has no interest in the bond currently held for these premises.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The landlord acknowledged that it did not comply with the ventilation standard in relation to either kitchen or bathroom extraction. The landlord has committed an unlawful act. It claims to have misunderstood the effective date, focussing on the 2024 cut-off date.
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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The tenant described the property as damp, as a result of the lack of ventilation. He said the bathroom became mouldy. I award $2,000 compensation for loss of amenity, effectively representing a rent reduction of about $35 per week from April 2022 to the end of the tenancy.
I do not award exemplary damages. While the landlord should have been aware of the correct compliance date, I do find that the landlord has acted intentionally by failing to install extraction within 90 days of the start of this tenancy.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Under s45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant has the onus of establishing its claims and must provide evidence to prove the allegations.
The tenant’s claims related to a smoke alarm, hot water tap in the kitchen and general complaints regarding the condition of the property. The tenant referred to 14-day notices sent by post that the landlord said it did not receive. The landlord also said that the placement of the smoke alarm complied with the regulations. There was conflicting evidence about the where the smoke alarm was.
Overall, the tenant’s evidence did not establish that it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached its obligations, except in relation to Healthy Homes Standards. The tenant’s other claims are dismissed.

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 landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The standard is reasonably clean and tidy. It is not pristine or perfect, it is not commercially clean. The tenant accepted a claim for degreaser for the driveway.
The landlord established the lawn repairs are required following the end of the tenancy and provided a quote for $105.50. The work will be done in spring.
The landlord did not establish its claim for cleaning costs. Both parties provided evidence of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The property appeared to be reasonably clean and tidy. Further, the landlord did not establish that it has, or will, incur the cleaning costs. The landlord provided a quote and said the cleaning hasn’t been done as renovations work is being carried out at the property. The claim for cleaning costs is dismissed.
As the tenant was partially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the filing fee and granted his request for suppression of his details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4571149 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4571149 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions