What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4609389 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Frontier Property Management Limited $350.00 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4609389?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4609389?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4609389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9740187-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4609389 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Frontier Property Management Limited $350.00 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4609389?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4609389?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4609389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9740187-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

7 Tamahere Drive, Glenfield, Auckland 0629 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4609389 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4609389 — net $350.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$100.00		Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$350.00		Carpet Cleaning
Curtain Cleaning	$250.00		Curtain Cleaning
Exemplary damages: Unlawful Entry by Landlord		$350.00	Unlawful Entry by Landlord
Total award	$700.00	$350.00
Net award	$350.00
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$350.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4609389 — net $350.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$100.00		Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$350.00		Carpet Cleaning
Curtain Cleaning	$250.00		Curtain Cleaning
Exemplary damages: Unlawful Entry by Landlord		$350.00	Unlawful Entry by Landlord
Total award	$700.00	$350.00
Net award	$350.00
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$350.00

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Frontier Property Management Limited $350.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Frontier Property Management Limited: $350.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,250.00
Frontier Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $350.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for compensation in respect of alleged breaches by the landlord of the Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background:
The tenancy began on 27 February 2021. The Agreement was for an initial fixed term of 12 months.
The premises consist of a single level dwelling with 3 bedrooms. The tenant was residing there with his family. Tenant claims:
The tenant has filed a number of claims in respect of alleged breaches by the landlord. I will address each claim separately as strictly recorded in his application filed with the Tribunal on 19 June 2023. No preventative Maintenance, heating issues and draught issues from toilet window:
The tenant claims that the landlord has not carried out the required preventative maintenance on the property causing heating and ventilation issues. In May 2021 there was an inspection by the landlord during which the tenant mentioned the ventilation issue in the main bathroom. He says that the extractor fan was not sufficient to deal with the steam and moisture. The tenant says that he requested that it be replaced.
The tenant also says that on 14 November 2022 he made a request to the landlord to have the heat pump serviced.
The tenant further claims that the separate toilet room had an old-style slat window which was not draught proof and would not close properly. The tenant did not complain about this at the time to the landlord.
The landlord says that they responded to these issues and addressed them as requested. The landlord says that a extractor fan was addressed pursuant to this request by the tenant. She also advised that the owner replaced the heat pump. This was carried out on 3 December 2022. The landlord stated that the only issue which could not be rectified was the toilet window. She says that these were the old-style louvre windows commonly found in older dwellings.
Section 45 Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”) states, inter alia, that a landlord shall provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.
Having carefully considered these three claims I see no evidence which supports the tenant’s assertions. The landlord has responded as required and even replaced the items concerned. I also find that the old-style louvre toilet window was an accepted style of window at the time the premises were constructed. The tenant has not filed evidence confirming that the window was faulty or broken.
Accordingly, these claims by the tenant are dismissed. Conflict of Interest in respect of Healthy Home Assessment:
The tenant says that there was a conflict of interest in respect of the Healthy Home assessment. He says the person who attended to undertake the initial inspection had a prior relationship with the owner.
The landlord denied this allegation and during the hearing appeared puzzled by this allegation.
I also dismiss this claim. There is no evidence in support which justifies further consideration. Premises did not Comply with insulation Requirements:
The tenant says that the premises did not comply with the insulation requirements at the start of the tenancy on 27 February 2021. The tenant says that the insulation was not ‘R’ rated.
The landlord provided a Healthy Homes assessment report dated July 2021 confirming that the insulation complied. The notes of the assessor further confirmed that the insulation was reasonable and more than a minimum thickness of 120mm which complies with the standard.
This claim by the tenant is dismissed. Fixed water charges:
The tenant says that the landlord has breached the RTA by forcing him to pay fixed water charges.
The tenant says that each month he was required to pay the entire Watercare invoice. This included a fixed charge component of the invoice. This continued for the full length of the tenancy. The tenant says that he was not refunded the correct amount of fixed charges and as a result ended up deducting an amount of $538.00 from his rent payment.
The landlord responded by attempting to explain how the arrangement came about. She says that the arrangement was based on how they have opted to pay for the supply of water. This arrangement requires less administration for the landlord. The arrangement requires the tenant to pay the full invoice amount each month and that the fixed charges are refunded back to the tenant at the end of the year. The tenancy Agreement also records a special condition that the tenant will pay the full water bill each month and at the end of the tenancy all fixed charges will be reimbursed to the tenant.
The landlord says that there is an amount of $17.90 still owed by the tenant. The tenant disputes this and says he has overpaid by $6.17.
It is my view that this special condition is unlawful and unenforceable.
Neither party has claimed compensation for these amounts in their actual applications filed with the tribunal.
I allow the claim and simply make a declaration that this condition is unenforceable. Unlawful entry by landlord:
The tenant says that the landlord on more than one occasion entered the property without authority.
The tenant states that the owner lives down the back of the sub-divided property in a separate dwelling. The tenant says that the female owner would come on to his deck and look around. The tenant did not file any evidence in support of this claim. The landlord denies that this took place.
On 17 July 2022 late at night the male owner’s motor vehicle collided with the side of the tenant’s house causing minor damage. There is no dispute from the landlord that this occurred. The tenant says that the male owner turned up to his front door the following morning to repair the damage. There was no notice given by the owner to undertake any repairs. The landlord also accepted that the owner knocked on the front door the following morning.
On 18 May 2023 the male owner noticed that the tenant’s rubbish bin had fallen over on the driveway. While moving the bin the owner also noticed the basement door open. The tenant says that the owner has entered the property and gone into the basement. He also claims that the owner took photos of the tenant’s belongings which still happened to be in the basement area. The owner then sent these photos to the property manager who in turn contacted the tenant by text with the message “did you leave these? Please clean it so I can do move out inspection tomorrow.”
The landlord responded by saying that the owner was just trying to make sure nothing was left behind. She says that he saw the basement door open and belongings still there. He took photos and sent to property manager.
Section 48 of the RTA is very clear in respect of when a landlord can enter premises. It clearly states that a landlord shall not enter the premises during the currency of the tenancy agreement except with the consent of the tenant or in any of the circumstances described in section 48 (2) and (3).
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The tenant had lawful occupation of the premises up until 11.59pm on 18 May 2023.
The tenant’s claim in respect of the female owner coming on to the deck of his property is dismissed as the evidence does not support this claim.
I allow the tenant’s claims in respect of the visit by the male owner on the morning after the motor vehicle mishap and the unlawful entry into the tenant’s basement prior to him properly vacating the premises. It is my view that these two instances are clear breaches of landlord obligations. Notice period for end of fixed term:
The tenant says that on 12 February 2022 (15 days prior to the expiry of the existing fixed term) the landlord emailed the tenant offering him a new fixed term. The landlord also gave the tenant notice that there would be a rent increase going forward under a new fixed term. The tenant says the landlord did not provide the required notice period for a rent increase.
The landlord filed evidence of a rent increase notice dated 17 February 2023 with an increase to begin on 17 April 2023. The notice complied with the requirement under section 24(1) of the RTA in that the notice period shall not be less than 60 days. Having sighted the notice I am satisfied that the same fully complies with the requirements.
This claim by the tenant is dismissed. Final inspection:
The tenant says that the property manager refused to allow a final inspection at a time when he could be present. The final inspection went ahead without the tenant present.
The landlord says that she had to undertake the final inspection herself and could not accommodate the tenant’s request that the final inspection take place after 6pm. She stated that it is far too difficult to undertake a final inspection when it is dark.
There is no provision in the RTA which states when and how a final inspection should take place. Having regard to the landlord’s explanation I am satisfied that no breach of the landlord’s obligation has occurred. Disclosure of personal information to a Third Party:
The tenant claims that the landlord has disclosed his personal details to a third- party carpet cleaning company. Towards the end of the tenancy the landlord suggested to the tenant that he organise professional carpet cleaning. The tenant did not do this at the time. The tenant had a discussion with the property manager regarding the requirements for a professional carpet cleaner. The landlord stated that their company uses a particular carpet cleaning company. The tenant says that he then received an advertising pamphlet in the mail. He says this was addressed to him.
The tenant filed evidence of the carpet cleaning pamphlet. He also provided a photograph taken of the back of the envelope which the pamphlet came in. The tenant did not photograph the front of the envelope which supposedly had his name on it.
The landlord does not accept this claim.
Having reviewed this material I am not satisfied that there is any basis for the tenant’s claim other than a pure coincidence. There is simply no evidence to support the claim that the landlord breached its obligations in this regard.
The claim is dismissed. Landlord’s claims:
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the property reasonable clean and tidy at the conclusion of the tenancy. She also claims that the carpet and curtains required professional cleaning and stain removal.

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord says that there were noticeable pen marks on the wall, stickers on the ceiling of one of the bedrooms and a dirty oven tray. The landlord says that the tenant should reimburse the owner for the time taken to clean these. There was no invoice provided in support of this claim however the landlord says that the owner is claiming the amount of $200.00 as compensation for his time in respect of this.
The tenant says that he arranged for a professional cleaner on 18 May 2023. In support of this he provided what appears to be a screenshot of a cleaning ‘receipt’. It is unfortunate that the tenant did not provide confirmation of this in the form of a proper itemised receipt in PDF email form. The tenant maintains that the place was clean although he also accepted that he had to return the following day to clean these items which the professional cleaner had supposedly missed. The landlord notified the tenant the following afternoon stating that the property was not reasonably clean. The landlord also stated that the people viewing the property to rent on 22 May 2023 commented that the house was not clean. On 26 May 2023 the landlord emailed the tenant stating that the stickers had not been removed and the walls not clean.
I have sighted the photographic evidence provided by the landlord in support of this claim. I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the conclusion of his tenancy. I am also surprised that professional cleaners would overlook some of the cleaning issues raised.
I allow a reduced amount of compensation to reflect the time it would have taken the landlord to clean these items.
The landlord also claims that the tenant did not leave the carpet reasonably clean. The evidence provided by the landlord clearly shows staining on parts of the carpet. The landlord says that the carpet was approximately one year old with no stains or marks at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant accepted that there were some stains on the carpet but says these were very small. He also expected the landlord to claim insurance to cover this.
Claiming insurance would not be a realistic option for a landlord. I allow this claim for carpet cleaning but in my view the evidence does not support the amount claimed for this by the landlord. I allow the claim but award a reduced amount to reflect the need to treat the various stains. There is no evidence to support the need for a clean of the entire carpet.
The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the curtains in a reasonably clean condition. She says that the curtains had what appeared to be grease marks on them. She also confirmed that the curtains were brand new at the start of the tenancy. She also claims that there was mould on the curtains.
The tenant says that he tried to clean the curtains and as such the curtains were left in a reasonably clean condition. Limited photographic evidence was provided by the landlord in support of this claim. There was no evidence of mould apparent from the small number of photographs provided.
I allow the claim for the curtains but also reduce the award based on the limited evidence filed in support.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord claims that the tenant breached his obligation by not notifying them of the need for repairs and maintenance. She seeks compensation for this. The tenant does not accept this claim.
This claim by the landlord is dismissed. There is no evidence to suggest that the tenant has breached his obligations in respect of this.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The tenant applied for non-publication of his name and identifying details. He has partly succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. Accordingly, I allow the tenant name suppression as sought.
Given that both parties have been partly successful with their applications it is my view that they should each absorb their respective application filing fees.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4609389 — Cleanliness at 7 Tamahere Drive, Glenfield, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4609389 — Cleanliness at 7 Tamahere Drive, Glenfield, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

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