How much money was awarded in case 4608949?

Cleaning: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $950.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $195.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Electrician Costs: $333.05 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $645.09 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $734.96 awarded to landlord; Replace Heat Pump Remote Control: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Keys: $43.60 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $363.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4608949?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4608949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9203996-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4608949?

Cleaning: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $950.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $195.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Electrician Costs: $333.05 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $645.09 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $734.96 awarded to landlord; Replace Heat Pump Remote Control: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Keys: $43.60 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $363.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4608949?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4608949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9203996-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4608949 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4608949 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 4608949 — net $2,945.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Glazing repairs	$645.09		Glazing repairs
Electrician costs	$333.05		Electrician costs
Repairs to doors, walls, pool fencing and tiles	$734.96		Repairs to doors, walls, pool fencing and tiles
Rubbish removal and dump fees	$363.71		Rubbish removal and dump fees
Replace keys	$43.60		Replace keys
Replace heat pump remote control	$140.00		Replace heat pump remote control
Carpet cleaning	$270.00		17. The landlord sought an additional 1 week’s rent because new tenants could not immediately move into the premises when this tenancy ended.
Cleaning	$950.00		17. The landlord sought an additional 1 week’s rent because new tenants could not immediately move into the premises when this tenancy ended.
Empty and clean pool	$195.00		Empty and clean pool
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation		$750.00	Compensation
Total award	$3,695.85	$750.00
Net award	$2,945.85
Bond	$4,960.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,945.85

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details. The tenant did not seek name suppression.

Adam Scott, Ryan George Schmack, Oscar Humphreys, Zak Healey, Jack Miller, Fletcher Lyford, Harry Strang, and Blake Walker to pay [The landlord/s] $2,945.85 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,945.85 Adam Scott, Ryan George Schmack, Oscar Humphreys, Zak Healey, Jack Miller, Fletcher Lyford, Harry Strang, Blake Walker: $2,014.15

The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

The landlord’s application for 1 week’s additional rent is dismissed.

The landlord’s application for 1 day’s rent arrears is withdrawn.

Reasons

All parties other than Mr Strang and Mr Walker attended the hearing on 19 July 2023. They authorised the other tenants to represent them.

I amended the proceedings to correctly include all the tenants and to add [The landlord/s] as a landlord party. I will refer to the parties in the singular – landlord and tenant.

Both parties gave evidence at the hearing, and each provided documentary evidence that I have considered. Background

The tenancy started on 1 December 2021 and ended on 30 November 2022. The tenant did not take up possession immediately and left a few weeks before the end date, as is common with student tenancies.

After the tenancy ended the tenants filed an application against the landlord. The landlord then filed a cross application.

At the hearing I suggested that the parties consider mediation as a means of resolving the issues in dispute. The landlord was agreeable to that, the tenant was not.

The landlord has applied for compensation, a partial refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant has applied for exemplary damages for alleged landlord breaches amounting to unlawful acts and for compensation for landlord breaches.

At the hearing, the landlord withdrew a claim for 1 day’s additional rent. Issues

The issues for determination by the Tribunal are: •Has the landlord proved claims for compensation from the tenants arising from breaches of the tenancy agreement and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)? If so, what compensation should the Tribunal award? •Has the tenant proved that the landlord committed unlawful acts? If so, should the Tribunal award exemplary damages? •Should the Tribunal award the tenant compensation? Has the landlord proved claims for compensation from the tenants arising from breaches of the tenancy agreement and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)? If so, what compensation should the Tribunal award?

The tenant accepted the landlord’s claims for glazing repairs, electrical repairs, other repairs (to doors, walls, the pool fending and tiles), key replacement, and replacing the heat pump remote control. I have allowed those claims by consent, marked with *.

I find proved by the evidence given by the parties and the documentary evidence each provided the claims for carpet cleaning (not including the lounge carpet) and emptying and cleaning the pool (a claim for landlord time and labour).

The tenancy agreement required the tenant to keep the pool clean. While it appears to be clean on or about 18 November 2022 when the tenant left the tenancy, by the end date the photographic evidence shows that it was no longer clean. The tenant’s obligations remained until the end date of the tenancy and did not end when the tenant vacated.

I also find proved the landlord’s claim for cleaning generally. I have deducted $200.00 from the cleaning claim because the landlord accepted that the oven was not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy.

The tenant raised other cleaning issues from the start of the tenancy, but they should have been addressed then. It is very difficult to retrospectively address cleaning issues once the tenancy has run its course.

In summary, the tenant accepted the landlord’s compensation claims other than the 3 disputed claims. I find those claims proved (with the noted deduction for cleaning) based on the evidence presented to the Tribunal.

The landlord sought an additional 1 week’s rent because new tenants could not immediately move into the premises when this tenancy ended. I have dismissed that claim. Landlords must expect to have to do some cleaning and maintenance between tenancies. There are only limited situations when the Tribunal will award loss of rent compensation. This is not one of them. Has the tenant proved that the landlord committed unlawful acts? If so, should the Tribunal award exemplary damages?

The tenant alleges that the landlord failed to maintain and repair the premises and failed to provide working compliant smoke alarms and that the premises were not Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) compliant.

Those matters, if proved, would amount to unlawful acts.

The first issue mainly related to a leaking roof which in turn caused leaking through the lounge ceiling.

The tenant said the roof was not patched until around June 2022 before which the lounge carpet became mouldy. Although the tenant purchased a roll of carpet it was never put down.

The tenant said the ranch slider came off its runners and the glass shattered. The repairs took time.

The tenant alleged that the premises were not HHS compliant. The tenant had the premises assessed in November 2022, shortly before the tenancy ended, and 4 of 6 categories were not met. The tenant then served a 14-day notice on the landlord.

The tenant said there were no smoke alarms and they had to purchase smoke alarms themselves. The tenant later recalled that there was 1 smoke alarm.

The landlord said a roof leak the year before this tenancy was repaired but another leak then occurred. A roofer said the cause of the leak was difficult to find so they had a builder assess the roof as well. The landlord said it took time to get tradespeople to do the repairs, but both the roof and the ceiling were repaired.

The landlord said the lounge carpet needed replacing and had since been replaced, but it was not mouldy.

The landlord produced a HHS assessment report that confirmed the premises were HHS compliant at the start of the tenancy. The installation of a kitchen extraction fan, as recommended, was done.

The landlord said all matters in the tenant’s 14-day notice issued in November 2022 were remedied.

The landlord said they had paid 13 different tradespeople to attend the property during last year. While the ranch slider repair was delayed, there was never any danger because the glass was toughened glass.

The landlord said there were working smoke alarms at the start of the tenancy which they regularly checked.

I find that the landlord delayed some repair work. That said, the cause of roof leaking can be difficult to pinpoint. But the tenant was inconveniences by water leaking through the ceiling from the roof. And the delayed ranch slider was also an inconvenience.

While there were delays in having repairs done, this was not a landlord that ‘sat on their hands’ and did nothing. The evidence the landlord produced shows that they attended to repair issues even if there were delays.

I am satisfied that the premises were HHS compliant at the start of the tenancy. That further issues were identified shortly before the tenancy ended does not necessarily constitute a breach of the HHS. The tenant took the appropriate action by serving a 14-day notice, and the landlord by completing the work within time.

The landlord took all reasonable steps to ensure HHS compliance at the start of the tenancy.

There is a direct conflict in the evidence about the smoke alarms. The landlord insists that there were compliant smoke alarms at the start of the tenancy. The tenant says there were not.

Neither party produced documentary evidence that would justify the Tribunal fining a breach by the landlord amounting to an unlawful act.

The landlord’s evidence was convincing. The landlord said he was a plumber by trade; he carried replacement smoke alarms with him; he kept a spreadsheet of the smoke alarms in his rental properties; and he checked the alarms every time he inspected the premises.

I accept that evidence.

I do not find that the landlord committed any unlawful acts as alleged by the tenant. And even if the landlord had failed to repair the premises, I would not have awarded exemplary damages. That requires intent to be established. At most I would have found the landlord’s actions negligent, rather than intentional.

Should the Tribunal award the tenant compensation?

That said, I found that the tenant was inconvenienced by delayed repairs. And the lounge carpet was in such a bad state that it should have been replaced at the start of the tenancy (it has since been replaced).

I award the tenant compensation of $750.00 for the inconvenience of having to wait for repairs to be done and for having to live with the grossly stained lounge carpet. Result

The landlord’s claims are successful in the amount of $3,695.85. The tenant’s claims are successful in the amount of $750.00.

The bond will therefore be split between the parties - $2,945.85 to the landlord and $2,104.15 to the tenant. Name suppression

The landlord has applied for a name suppression order and is entitled to an order because the application is substantially successful – see section 95A RTA.

The tenant did not seek name suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4608949 — net $2,945.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Glazing repairs	$645.09		Glazing repairs
Electrician costs	$333.05		Electrician costs
Repairs to doors, walls, pool fencing and tiles	$734.96		Repairs to doors, walls, pool fencing and tiles
Rubbish removal and dump fees	$363.71		Rubbish removal and dump fees
Replace keys	$43.60		Replace keys
Replace heat pump remote control	$140.00		Replace heat pump remote control
Carpet cleaning	$270.00		17. The landlord sought an additional 1 week’s rent because new tenants could not immediately move into the premises when this tenancy ended.
Cleaning	$950.00		17. The landlord sought an additional 1 week’s rent because new tenants could not immediately move into the premises when this tenancy ended.
Empty and clean pool	$195.00		Empty and clean pool
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation		$750.00	Compensation
Total award	$3,695.85	$750.00
Net award	$2,945.85
Bond	$4,960.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,945.85