What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4595211 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 4595211?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Breach of duties in re…: $1,650.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4595211?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4595211?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9390432-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4595211 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 4595211?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Breach of duties in re…: $1,650.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4595211?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4595211?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9390432-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4595211 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4595211 — net $1,300.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$350.00		53. I will award $350.00 for cleaning representing 10 hours of cleaning at $35/hr.
Filing fee	$20.44		Filing fee
Compensation: Breach of duties in respect of		$1,650.00	Breach of duties in respect of
Filing fee		$20.44	Filing fee
Total award	$370.44	$1,670.44
Net award		$1,300.00
Bond		$1,560.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,300.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,300.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy ended on 30 May 2023.
The tenants’ application raises maintenance issues.
The landlord’s application sought water rates and cleaning costs.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 6 September 2023. [The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord. [Tenant 1] attended the hearing by phone with the consent of the Tribunal. Tenants’ application
The application raises three maintenance issues: a. Crack(s) in the base of the shower. b. Toilet cistern filling very slowly. c. Dishwasher not working.
Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair 1 .
The tenancy agreement shows that [The property manager] acted as agent / representative for the owner at the beginning of the tenancy in July 2019.
[The landlord’s representative] took over management of the tenancy in 2022. Crack(s) in base of shower
On 3 February 2022 [Tenant 1] sent a text to [The property manager] stating: I just reach out to you as there is an issue with the sink tap. I just also recently noticed the crack on the shower floor.
[Tenant 1] submitted that the landlord did not take any action at that time.
On 21 January 2023 [Tenant 1] sent [The landlord’s representative] an email stating: I am writing to request your immediate attention to some maintenance issues that have been occurring in my unit. Specifically, I have noticed cracks in the shower floor, the toilet flush takes a very long time to refill, and the dishwasher sometimes does not work.
[The landlord’s representative] replied to this email the same day, stating: The owner will come and seal the crack, as he is planning what to do with the shower – this will be a temporary fix for now.
I understand that the owner did inspect the shower, but did not seal the crack.
[Tenant 1] applied adhesive tape over the crack, but it is unclear when he did this. 1 Section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants were then given notice to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that extensive repairs, refurbishment (etc.) was to be carried out on the premises, and the work could not be done with the tenant in situ. I do not know the date of that termination notice and I was not provided with a copy of it.
[The landlord’s representative] confirmed that part of the repair work was replacement of the shower, and this work has been done since the tenants left the property.
[The landlord’s representative] submitted that the crack was caused by the tenants dropping something on the floor. [Tenant 1] submitted that the floor does not seem to be adequately supported, which means that the floor flexes.
My findings are: a. It is unlikely that the damage was caused by the tenant dropping something on the floor. The nature of the damage is far more consistent with [Tenant 1]’s explanation. It is a maintenance issue. b. [Tenant 1] first raised this issue in February 2022. No action was taken. c. The situation had worsened by January 2023, when [Tenant 1] sent an email to [The landlord’s representative]. d. It was possible to carry out a temporary repair of the crack using sealant or tape. [The landlord’s representative]’s email to [Tenant 1] stated that the landlord intended to do this, and that would been an appropriate interim measure for the landlord to take. The landlord did not do any temporary repair, and [Tenant 1] did it himself. e. The only permanent ‘repair’ is replacement of the shower box. This is large scale and disruptive work. It is understandable that the landlord gave notice to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that extensive repairs are required and that it is not practicable to do the work with the tenants in situ. f. The landlord failed to meet its maintenance obligation by: i. Not taking action in response to the February 2022 text message. ii. Not carrying out any temporary repairs in response to the January 2023 email. Toilet cistern filling slowly
[Tenant 1] first raised this issue in the 21 January 2023 email.
[The landlord’s representative] acknowledged that she did not take any action in respect of this issue.
[The landlord’s representative] submitted that: a. In her routine inspections she checked the toilet and there was no problem with it. b. At the final inspection she checked the toilet again and the cistern appeared to be re-filling normally.
[Tenant 1] provided a video, taken on the last day of his tenancy, which shows the cistern taking at least ten minutes to refill after the toilet has been flushed.
The video recording is persuasive evidence. I am satisfied that there was a problem with the cistern filling slowly. I am satisfied that [Tenant 1] would not have mentioned this in his 21 January email if the problem did not exist.
The landlord failed to meet its maintenance obligation by not taking any action in respect of this issue.
[Tenant 1] submitted that the problem caused inconvenience and disruption for himself and his wife, and that the existence of this problem, together with the cracks in the shower floor, meant that they did not want to have family or friends staying over at the unit. Dishwasher
Similar considerations apply under this heading.
[Tenant 1] first raised this issue in the 21 January email.
[The landlord’s representative] did not take any action in respect of this issue.
[The landlord’s representative] submitted that she checked the dishwasher at the end of the tenancy, and it appeared to be working satisfactorily.
Based on [Tenant 1]’s oral evidence, and his detailed description of the problem in his (second) email to [The landlord’s representative] on 21 January, I am satisfied that there was a fault with the dishwasher. [Tenant 1] submitted that the fault was initially sporadic, but it got worse from January to the end of the tenancy in May 2023.
The landlord failed to meet its maintenance obligation by not taking any action in respect of this issue. Maintenance - compensation
The tenants’ application seeks compensation of $5,000.00 for these issues, calculated as follows: a. Rent reduction of $50.00 per week from 20 February 2021 to 30 May 2023 (shower base cracks), and b. Additional rent reduction of $50.00 per week from 21 January 2023 to 30 May 2023 (toilet cistern and dishwasher).
My findings are: a. I agree with the structure of [Tenant 1]’s compensation claim, but: i. There is no evidence of the landlord being notified of the shower base crack before 3 February 2022; and ii. The amount of rent reduction claimed is disproportionate to the loss of amenity that he incurred as a consequence of the unresolved problems. b. I will award compensation of compensation of $750.00 for the unresolved shower crack issue for the period from 3 February 2022 to 21 January 2023 (approximately 50 weeks) and an additional $900.00 for the unresolved shower crack, toilet cistern, and dishwasher issues from 22 January 2023 to the end of the tenancy (approximately 18 weeks).
On 2 January 2023, the landlord gave notice to increase the rent from $435.00 per week to $510.00 per week with effect from 4 March 2023.
[Tenant 1] objected to the notice.
[The landlord’s representative] submitted that the landlord did not apply the rent increase because of the need for repairs (in particular the shower base crack) and that this ought to be taken into account in any assessment of compensation.
One of the grounds for [Tenant 1]’s objection to the increase was that the new rental rate was significantly above the market rate for a 2-bedroom unit in that area.
The unit has been renovated and re-painted since the end of this tenancy. [The landlord’s representative] submitted that it has now been re-let at $510.00 per week.
The proposed rent increase was not justifiable in light of the condition of the premises at that time. My finding is that it would be unjust to apply any of the waived rent increase as a set-off against the compensation owed to the tenants. Landlord application
[The landlord’s representative] withdrew the claim for water rates.
The application seeks cleaning costs of $560.00 per an invoice from [Construction Company].
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy 2 . 2 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
Both parties provided photographs showing the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
[The landlord’s representative]’s final inspection report also includes detailed notation about the condition of the premises.
[Tenant 1] acknowledged that they may have missed some minor areas when cleaning, but he considered that the amount claimed was excessive. [Tenant 1] also noted that the landlord intended to carry out extensive repairs after they vacated and he questioned the need for cleaning before the start of that work.
[The landlord’s representative] submitted that she obtained quotes from several cleaners that were more than double the [Construction Company] invoice. [The landlord’s representative] stated that the owner has paid the invoice.
I note that the sole director and shareholder of [Construction Company] is [The property manager], presumably the same [The property manager] who acted as agent for the owner at the start of the tenancy. I also note that the address given on [Construction Company]’s invoice the same address provided by the owner [The landlord/s] in the tenancy agreement.
It is reasonable to infer that [The property manager] is [The landlord’s representative]’s partner.
That does not preclude the landlord from claiming the cost of [Construction Company]’s work from the tenants, but it does add weight to [Tenant 1]’s question about whether this cost has in fact been incurred by the landlord.
Notwithstanding those concerns, I will accept [The landlord’s representative]’s direct oral evidence that the landlord has in fact incurred this cost.
The photographs provided to me show that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy in some respects.
The oven required more cleaning, and so did some of the surfaces in particular the doors and the inside of some cupboards.
I will award $350.00 for cleaning representing 10 hours of cleaning at $35/hr. Filing fee, bond, name suppression
Both parties have been successful or partially successful in their application. Each is entitled to recover the filing fee from the other.
The bond will be released to the tenants.
Both parties sought name suppression. I am satisfied that both have been substantially successful in the proceedings in respect of their own applications, and name suppression is granted to both parties 3 .
The landlord named in the tenancy agreement is [The landlord/s]. [The property management] acted as agents only. Therefore, I have made the order against [The landlord/s].

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4595211 — net $1,300.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$350.00		53. I will award $350.00 for cleaning representing 10 hours of cleaning at $35/hr.
Filing fee	$20.44		Filing fee
Compensation: Breach of duties in respect of		$1,650.00	Breach of duties in respect of
Filing fee		$20.44	Filing fee
Total award	$370.44	$1,670.44
Net award		$1,300.00
Bond		$1,560.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,300.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,300.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy ended on 30 May 2023.
The tenants’ application raises maintenance issues.
The landlord’s application sought water rates and cleaning costs.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 6 September 2023. [The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord. [Tenant 1] attended the hearing by phone with the consent of the Tribunal. Tenants’ application
The application raises three maintenance issues: a. Crack(s) in the base of the shower. b. Toilet cistern filling very slowly. c. Dishwasher not working.
Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair 1 .
The tenancy agreement shows that [The property manager] acted as agent / representative for the owner at the beginning of the tenancy in July 2019.
[The landlord’s representative] took over management of the tenancy in 2022. Crack(s) in base of shower
On 3 February 2022 [Tenant 1] sent a text to [The property manager] stating: I just reach out to you as there is an issue with the sink tap. I just also recently noticed the crack on the shower floor.
[Tenant 1] submitted that the landlord did not take any action at that time.
On 21 January 2023 [Tenant 1] sent [The landlord’s representative] an email stating: I am writing to request your immediate attention to some maintenance issues that have been occurring in my unit. Specifically, I have noticed cracks in the shower floor, the toilet flush takes a very long time to refill, and the dishwasher sometimes does not work.
[The landlord’s representative] replied to this email the same day, stating: The owner will come and seal the crack, as he is planning what to do with the shower – this will be a temporary fix for now.
I understand that the owner did inspect the shower, but did not seal the crack.
[Tenant 1] applied adhesive tape over the crack, but it is unclear when he did this. 1 Section 45(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants were then given notice to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that extensive repairs, refurbishment (etc.) was to be carried out on the premises, and the work could not be done with the tenant in situ. I do not know the date of that termination notice and I was not provided with a copy of it.
[The landlord’s representative] confirmed that part of the repair work was replacement of the shower, and this work has been done since the tenants left the property.
[The landlord’s representative] submitted that the crack was caused by the tenants dropping something on the floor. [Tenant 1] submitted that the floor does not seem to be adequately supported, which means that the floor flexes.
My findings are: a. It is unlikely that the damage was caused by the tenant dropping something on the floor. The nature of the damage is far more consistent with [Tenant 1]’s explanation. It is a maintenance issue. b. [Tenant 1] first raised this issue in February 2022. No action was taken. c. The situation had worsened by January 2023, when [Tenant 1] sent an email to [The landlord’s representative]. d. It was possible to carry out a temporary repair of the crack using sealant or tape. [The landlord’s representative]’s email to [Tenant 1] stated that the landlord intended to do this, and that would been an appropriate interim measure for the landlord to take. The landlord did not do any temporary repair, and [Tenant 1] did it himself. e. The only permanent ‘repair’ is replacement of the shower box. This is large scale and disruptive work. It is understandable that the landlord gave notice to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that extensive repairs are required and that it is not practicable to do the work with the tenants in situ. f. The landlord failed to meet its maintenance obligation by: i. Not taking action in response to the February 2022 text message. ii. Not carrying out any temporary repairs in response to the January 2023 email. Toilet cistern filling slowly
[Tenant 1] first raised this issue in the 21 January 2023 email.
[The landlord’s representative] acknowledged that she did not take any action in respect of this issue.
[The landlord’s representative] submitted that: a. In her routine inspections she checked the toilet and there was no problem with it. b. At the final inspection she checked the toilet again and the cistern appeared to be re-filling normally.
[Tenant 1] provided a video, taken on the last day of his tenancy, which shows the cistern taking at least ten minutes to refill after the toilet has been flushed.
The video recording is persuasive evidence. I am satisfied that there was a problem with the cistern filling slowly. I am satisfied that [Tenant 1] would not have mentioned this in his 21 January email if the problem did not exist.
The landlord failed to meet its maintenance obligation by not taking any action in respect of this issue.
[Tenant 1] submitted that the problem caused inconvenience and disruption for himself and his wife, and that the existence of this problem, together with the cracks in the shower floor, meant that they did not want to have family or friends staying over at the unit. Dishwasher
Similar considerations apply under this heading.
[Tenant 1] first raised this issue in the 21 January email.
[The landlord’s representative] did not take any action in respect of this issue.
[The landlord’s representative] submitted that she checked the dishwasher at the end of the tenancy, and it appeared to be working satisfactorily.
Based on [Tenant 1]’s oral evidence, and his detailed description of the problem in his (second) email to [The landlord’s representative] on 21 January, I am satisfied that there was a fault with the dishwasher. [Tenant 1] submitted that the fault was initially sporadic, but it got worse from January to the end of the tenancy in May 2023.
The landlord failed to meet its maintenance obligation by not taking any action in respect of this issue. Maintenance - compensation
The tenants’ application seeks compensation of $5,000.00 for these issues, calculated as follows: a. Rent reduction of $50.00 per week from 20 February 2021 to 30 May 2023 (shower base cracks), and b. Additional rent reduction of $50.00 per week from 21 January 2023 to 30 May 2023 (toilet cistern and dishwasher).
My findings are: a. I agree with the structure of [Tenant 1]’s compensation claim, but: i. There is no evidence of the landlord being notified of the shower base crack before 3 February 2022; and ii. The amount of rent reduction claimed is disproportionate to the loss of amenity that he incurred as a consequence of the unresolved problems. b. I will award compensation of compensation of $750.00 for the unresolved shower crack issue for the period from 3 February 2022 to 21 January 2023 (approximately 50 weeks) and an additional $900.00 for the unresolved shower crack, toilet cistern, and dishwasher issues from 22 January 2023 to the end of the tenancy (approximately 18 weeks).
On 2 January 2023, the landlord gave notice to increase the rent from $435.00 per week to $510.00 per week with effect from 4 March 2023.
[Tenant 1] objected to the notice.
[The landlord’s representative] submitted that the landlord did not apply the rent increase because of the need for repairs (in particular the shower base crack) and that this ought to be taken into account in any assessment of compensation.
One of the grounds for [Tenant 1]’s objection to the increase was that the new rental rate was significantly above the market rate for a 2-bedroom unit in that area.
The unit has been renovated and re-painted since the end of this tenancy. [The landlord’s representative] submitted that it has now been re-let at $510.00 per week.
The proposed rent increase was not justifiable in light of the condition of the premises at that time. My finding is that it would be unjust to apply any of the waived rent increase as a set-off against the compensation owed to the tenants. Landlord application
[The landlord’s representative] withdrew the claim for water rates.
The application seeks cleaning costs of $560.00 per an invoice from [Construction Company].
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy 2 . 2 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
Both parties provided photographs showing the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
[The landlord’s representative]’s final inspection report also includes detailed notation about the condition of the premises.
[Tenant 1] acknowledged that they may have missed some minor areas when cleaning, but he considered that the amount claimed was excessive. [Tenant 1] also noted that the landlord intended to carry out extensive repairs after they vacated and he questioned the need for cleaning before the start of that work.
[The landlord’s representative] submitted that she obtained quotes from several cleaners that were more than double the [Construction Company] invoice. [The landlord’s representative] stated that the owner has paid the invoice.
I note that the sole director and shareholder of [Construction Company] is [The property manager], presumably the same [The property manager] who acted as agent for the owner at the start of the tenancy. I also note that the address given on [Construction Company]’s invoice the same address provided by the owner [The landlord/s] in the tenancy agreement.
It is reasonable to infer that [The property manager] is [The landlord’s representative]’s partner.
That does not preclude the landlord from claiming the cost of [Construction Company]’s work from the tenants, but it does add weight to [Tenant 1]’s question about whether this cost has in fact been incurred by the landlord.
Notwithstanding those concerns, I will accept [The landlord’s representative]’s direct oral evidence that the landlord has in fact incurred this cost.
The photographs provided to me show that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy in some respects.
The oven required more cleaning, and so did some of the surfaces in particular the doors and the inside of some cupboards.
I will award $350.00 for cleaning representing 10 hours of cleaning at $35/hr. Filing fee, bond, name suppression
Both parties have been successful or partially successful in their application. Each is entitled to recover the filing fee from the other.
The bond will be released to the tenants.
Both parties sought name suppression. I am satisfied that both have been substantially successful in the proceedings in respect of their own applications, and name suppression is granted to both parties 3 .
The landlord named in the tenancy agreement is [The landlord/s]. [The property management] acted as agents only. Therefore, I have made the order against [The landlord/s].

Tenancy Tribunal case 4595211 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4595211 — 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