What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4586631 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4586631?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4586631?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4586631?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9555195-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4586631 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4586631?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4586631?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4586631?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9555195-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4586631 — Cleanliness

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $50.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,950.00
[The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] $50.00 from the bond for failure to meet their obligations under s.40(1)(e) when the tenancy ended.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was supported by her property manager [The property manager/s] who also gave evidence Chronology of events
The tenancy began on 3 August 2023 and ended on Sunday 21 April 2023 after the tenants had given Notice of Termination.
A final inspection was arranged to take place with [The property manager/s] on that Sunday afternoon.
Early on the Saturday afternoon the tenants contacted [The property manager/s] to ask if the final inspection could be moved to the Monday saying, “Just realised there’s more stuff that we first thought to move than we first thought and wanting more time to do that and clean up,”
[The property manager/s] agreed the inspection could be deferred to 4:00pm on the Monday.
That inspection took place as agreed. [The property manager/s] was of the view that the premises were not in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and another inspection was arranged for the Tuesday to allow the tenants time to do additional cleaning of the premises.
That inspection took place in the late afternoon of Tuesday 23 October. [The property manager/s] was satisfied with the condition of the premises and keys were returned.
In the meantime, [The property manager/s] had advised the landlord that the tenants were still having to clean the premises after the inspection on the Monday. The landlord contacted the tenants directly to say that she intended to charge them rent for the days the premises were not ready for reoccupation.
The landlord originally proposed that the tenants be charged 2 days rent (Monday and Tuesday) plus a reinspection fee, but the reinspection fee is not claimed in this application to the Tribunal. Occupation of the premises
The landlord’s position is that the tenants remained in occupation of the premises until the Tuesday and that they should continue to be liable for rent until then under s.60, which provides that, “Where a tenant remains in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has terminated or has been terminated, all the obligations of the tenant shall continue in force as if the tenancy were still subsisting until such time as the tenant ceases to occupy the premises.”
The tenants’ evidence is that from Sunday when the tenancy ended, they had moved out their belongings and were living and sleeping elsewhere, though they do acknowledge that cleaning material was still at the premises.
I accept that evidence and do not find that the tenants remained in occupation of the premises beyond the end of the tenancy – they had moved out, though at that stage had not meet all of their end of tenancy obligations under s.40.
In its everyday usage, the term “occupation” denotes residence or living in a property. For example, the term “occupy” in the Oxford English Dictionary has the meaning, “...to dwell or reside in...”. I find that the tenants were not doing so and were not occupying the property beyond the end of the tenancy in terms of s.60.
Instead, having moved out of the premises, their obligations in terms of 40(1)(e) were to: “...(ii) remove all [their] goods from the premises; and (iii) leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish; and (iv) return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant; and (v) leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant.”
Breach of those obligations does not mean that the tenants have remained in occupation of the premises and are liable for continued payment of rent under s.60, but it does mean that they are liable to compensate the landlord for any actual and reasonable losses caused by their breach. In some circumstances those amounts might be the same, where for instance a tenant’s breach of those obligations causes a landlord actual loss of rents. S.40 Obligations
I find that there was an agreement between the landlord (through [The property manager/s]) and the tenants, that the final inspection could be deferred until the Monday afternoon. Had that not been acceptable, the tenants’ request could have declined, and they would have had to meet their exit obligations by the end of the tenancy. In my view however the request was not that the tenants be able to live there for another day and it is not just to retrospectively ask for an additional day’s rent after agreeing to defer the final inspection. I understand that the landlord may have had a different view about agreeing to the extension, but she is bound by the agreement entered into by [The property manager/s] as her agent.
The tenants were then required to comply with their obligations under s.40(1)(e) by 4:00 on the Monday. My finding is that they didn’t. It does not seem disputed that at that time, additional cleaning of the premises was still required. Indeed, txts from the tenants to [The property manager/s] show that they expected to be cleaning the whole of Tuesday and when [The property manager/s] suggested she come over at 3:30 on that day the reply was, “Hi [The property manager/s], sorry I’m still cleaning.”
I find that arranging another inspection time did not amount to an agreement to further extend the date for the tenants’ compliance. By then they were already in breach of their obligations – quite different than when they requested a later date for the initial inspection, at a point when they still had time to do what they needed to had the landlord declined.
Accordingly, when the premises were not ready on the Monday afternoon, the tenants were in breach of their obligations under the RTA and the landlord is entitled to compensation for any actual and reasonable losses incurred.
The landlord was moving back into the premises herself and suffered no quantifiable financial loss.
The evidence suggests that some of her belongings were able to be moved to the premises while the tenants were finishing the cleaning but I accept that some delay and inconvenience was caused because the tenants did not have the premises ready for handover on the Monday afternoon.
A modest award of compensation is appropriate to recognise that.
No order is made regarding the filing fee.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $50.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,950.00
[The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] $50.00 from the bond for failure to meet their obligations under s.40(1)(e) when the tenancy ended.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was supported by her property manager [The property manager/s] who also gave evidence Chronology of events
The tenancy began on 3 August 2023 and ended on Sunday 21 April 2023 after the tenants had given Notice of Termination.
A final inspection was arranged to take place with [The property manager/s] on that Sunday afternoon.
Early on the Saturday afternoon the tenants contacted [The property manager/s] to ask if the final inspection could be moved to the Monday saying, “Just realised there’s more stuff that we first thought to move than we first thought and wanting more time to do that and clean up,”
[The property manager/s] agreed the inspection could be deferred to 4:00pm on the Monday.
That inspection took place as agreed. [The property manager/s] was of the view that the premises were not in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and another inspection was arranged for the Tuesday to allow the tenants time to do additional cleaning of the premises.
That inspection took place in the late afternoon of Tuesday 23 October. [The property manager/s] was satisfied with the condition of the premises and keys were returned.
In the meantime, [The property manager/s] had advised the landlord that the tenants were still having to clean the premises after the inspection on the Monday. The landlord contacted the tenants directly to say that she intended to charge them rent for the days the premises were not ready for reoccupation.
The landlord originally proposed that the tenants be charged 2 days rent (Monday and Tuesday) plus a reinspection fee, but the reinspection fee is not claimed in this application to the Tribunal. Occupation of the premises
The landlord’s position is that the tenants remained in occupation of the premises until the Tuesday and that they should continue to be liable for rent until then under s.60, which provides that, “Where a tenant remains in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has terminated or has been terminated, all the obligations of the tenant shall continue in force as if the tenancy were still subsisting until such time as the tenant ceases to occupy the premises.”
The tenants’ evidence is that from Sunday when the tenancy ended, they had moved out their belongings and were living and sleeping elsewhere, though they do acknowledge that cleaning material was still at the premises.
I accept that evidence and do not find that the tenants remained in occupation of the premises beyond the end of the tenancy – they had moved out, though at that stage had not meet all of their end of tenancy obligations under s.40.
In its everyday usage, the term “occupation” denotes residence or living in a property. For example, the term “occupy” in the Oxford English Dictionary has the meaning, “...to dwell or reside in...”. I find that the tenants were not doing so and were not occupying the property beyond the end of the tenancy in terms of s.60.
Instead, having moved out of the premises, their obligations in terms of 40(1)(e) were to: “...(ii) remove all [their] goods from the premises; and (iii) leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish; and (iv) return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant; and (v) leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant.”
Breach of those obligations does not mean that the tenants have remained in occupation of the premises and are liable for continued payment of rent under s.60, but it does mean that they are liable to compensate the landlord for any actual and reasonable losses caused by their breach. In some circumstances those amounts might be the same, where for instance a tenant’s breach of those obligations causes a landlord actual loss of rents. S.40 Obligations
I find that there was an agreement between the landlord (through [The property manager/s]) and the tenants, that the final inspection could be deferred until the Monday afternoon. Had that not been acceptable, the tenants’ request could have declined, and they would have had to meet their exit obligations by the end of the tenancy. In my view however the request was not that the tenants be able to live there for another day and it is not just to retrospectively ask for an additional day’s rent after agreeing to defer the final inspection. I understand that the landlord may have had a different view about agreeing to the extension, but she is bound by the agreement entered into by [The property manager/s] as her agent.
The tenants were then required to comply with their obligations under s.40(1)(e) by 4:00 on the Monday. My finding is that they didn’t. It does not seem disputed that at that time, additional cleaning of the premises was still required. Indeed, txts from the tenants to [The property manager/s] show that they expected to be cleaning the whole of Tuesday and when [The property manager/s] suggested she come over at 3:30 on that day the reply was, “Hi [The property manager/s], sorry I’m still cleaning.”
I find that arranging another inspection time did not amount to an agreement to further extend the date for the tenants’ compliance. By then they were already in breach of their obligations – quite different than when they requested a later date for the initial inspection, at a point when they still had time to do what they needed to had the landlord declined.
Accordingly, when the premises were not ready on the Monday afternoon, the tenants were in breach of their obligations under the RTA and the landlord is entitled to compensation for any actual and reasonable losses incurred.
The landlord was moving back into the premises herself and suffered no quantifiable financial loss.
The evidence suggests that some of her belongings were able to be moved to the premises while the tenants were finishing the cleaning but I accept that some delay and inconvenience was caused because the tenants did not have the premises ready for handover on the Monday afternoon.
A modest award of compensation is appropriate to recognise that.
No order is made regarding the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4586631 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4586631 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions