What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4609449 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 4609449?

Cleaning: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $494.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $178.77 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4609449?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4609449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9491060-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4609449 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 4609449?

Cleaning: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $494.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoym…: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $178.77 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4609449?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4609449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9491060-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

67 Park Avenue, Kensington, Whangarei 0112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4609449 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4609449 — net $763.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$178.77		Water rates
Cleaning	$494.50		Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$240.00		Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee	$20.44		Filing fee
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$150.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee		$20.44	Filing fee
Total award	$933.71	$170.44
Net award	$763.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$763.27

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. 2.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of () immediately apportioned as follows: : :

Reasons

Background

The tenancy ended on 7 June 2023.
The landlord’s application seeks water rates, cleaning, carpet cleaning, and rubbish removal costs.
The tenant’s application seeks refund of the bond and raises an issue relating to tree trimming / felling work carried out near the end of the tenancy.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 22 September 2023. Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Piper represented the landlord. Landlord application Water rates
[The tenant/s] accepted the claim for water use to the end of the tenancy. Cleaning and carpet cleaning
Tenants must leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy 1 .
[The tenant/s] submitted that her friend vacuumed the carpet at the end of the tenancy and that she paid for a cleaner to clean the property.
[The tenant/s] left the property a few days before the end date to take up a new tenancy, but her cleaner carried out cleaning on Monday 5 June.
Ms Piper provided a copy of the final inspection report, which contains approximately 450 photographs.
I accept that [The tenant/s] had cleaning done before she left the premises. However, Ms Piper’s evidence establishes that parts of the premises, including the carpets, were not reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy and the claims for cleaning are justified.
The cleaning invoice includes the replacement of a shower curtain ($25.00 plus GST) which Ms Piper confirmed was not part of the claim against the tenant.
The amounts claimed for cleaning and carpet cleaning are proven. 1 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) Rubbish removal
Although there was some rubbish left at the premises at the end of the tenancy, for the reasons discussed in more detail below my finding is that the tenant is not liable for the cost of disposing of the rubbish. Tenant application
On 31 May 2023, contractors were at the property carrying out work on a large hedge on the boundary.
[The tenant/s] had not been told that the work was going to place.
[The tenant/s] was sitting with a friend in an outdoor area near the garage. She submitted that she was hit with some debris from the hedge trimming. She spoke with the contractor, who was polite and friendly but continued to work on the hedge and then moved to the front garden of [The tenant/s]’s property and trimmed a tree there.
As noted above, [The tenant/s] began another tenancy in another part of [Region] a few days before the formal end of this tenancy. [The tenant/s] returned to this property on Monday 4 June, intending to pick up the remainder of her belongings and dispose of rubbish that she had consolidated into a garden shed.
When she arrived at the property the arborists were there again, this time felling a large tree at the front of the property. The arborists would not allow [The tenant/s] onto the property for health and safety reasons. They asked her to come back in half an hour to an hour, which she did.
[The tenant/s] submitted that she had a limited amount of time available on that day and because of the delay she ran out of time to take away the rubbish. [The tenant/s]’s new property is a long drive from [region], and she was not able to return before the end of the tenancy on 7 June.
Landlords have a duty to not cause or permit any interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy 2 .
Ms Piper submitted that she was not informed by the owner of the property about the tree trimming / felling work. It appears that the owner had an arborist doing work on neighbouring properties and made a somewhat spontaneous decision to also have work done on this property. Ms Piper noted that the landlord is not legally obliged to give notice to the tenant if the landlord or its contractors do not go inside the house itself. 2 Section 38(2) RTA
I agree that no unlawful entry has occurred.
However, I also consider that the incident on 31 May did amount to an unreasonable interference with the tenant’s peace, comfort, and privacy.
[The tenant/s]’s tenancy was due to end the following week. It would have been sensible for the landlord to delay this noisy and disruptive work until the property was vacant.
[The tenant/s] explained that she has a head injury which makes it difficult for her to deal with noise and with situations that she is not prepared for. The incident caused her some distress, perhaps more than it would for other tenants, but an assessment of the impact on the tenant, and of compensation, must take into account the tenant’s actual experience of the incident 3 .
There is clearly no aspect of “harassment” in this instance, and exemplary damages are not warranted.
I will award compensation of $150.00 for the interference with [The tenant/s]’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy.
The incident on 5 June does not warrant a separate additional award of compensation. However, it does provide a defence to the landlord’s claim for rubbish removal. I accept [The tenant/s]’s statement that she intended to remove the rubbish on that day, that she had limited time available, and that she ran out of time because of the delay caused by the tree felling work. It would be unreasonable to expect [The tenant/s] to make a second trip back to the property given that her new tenancy was approximately an hour’s drive away. Filing fee, name suppression
Both parties have been successful or partially successful in their applications and each is entitled to be awarded the filing fee of $20.44 4 .
The tenant sought name suppression. Name suppression is granted on the grounds that the tenant has substantially succeeded in the proceedings 5 . N Blake, 04 October 2023 3 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 4 Section 102(4)(a) RTA 5 Section 95A(1) RTA

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4609449 — net $763.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$178.77		Water rates
Cleaning	$494.50		Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$240.00		Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee	$20.44		Filing fee
Compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$150.00	Breach of quiet enjoyment
Filing fee		$20.44	Filing fee
Total award	$933.71	$170.44
Net award	$763.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$763.27

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. 2.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of () immediately apportioned as follows: : :

Reasons

Background

The tenancy ended on 7 June 2023.
The landlord’s application seeks water rates, cleaning, carpet cleaning, and rubbish removal costs.
The tenant’s application seeks refund of the bond and raises an issue relating to tree trimming / felling work carried out near the end of the tenancy.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 22 September 2023. Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Piper represented the landlord. Landlord application Water rates
[The tenant/s] accepted the claim for water use to the end of the tenancy. Cleaning and carpet cleaning
Tenants must leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy 1 .
[The tenant/s] submitted that her friend vacuumed the carpet at the end of the tenancy and that she paid for a cleaner to clean the property.
[The tenant/s] left the property a few days before the end date to take up a new tenancy, but her cleaner carried out cleaning on Monday 5 June.
Ms Piper provided a copy of the final inspection report, which contains approximately 450 photographs.
I accept that [The tenant/s] had cleaning done before she left the premises. However, Ms Piper’s evidence establishes that parts of the premises, including the carpets, were not reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy and the claims for cleaning are justified.
The cleaning invoice includes the replacement of a shower curtain ($25.00 plus GST) which Ms Piper confirmed was not part of the claim against the tenant.
The amounts claimed for cleaning and carpet cleaning are proven. 1 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) Rubbish removal
Although there was some rubbish left at the premises at the end of the tenancy, for the reasons discussed in more detail below my finding is that the tenant is not liable for the cost of disposing of the rubbish. Tenant application
On 31 May 2023, contractors were at the property carrying out work on a large hedge on the boundary.
[The tenant/s] had not been told that the work was going to place.
[The tenant/s] was sitting with a friend in an outdoor area near the garage. She submitted that she was hit with some debris from the hedge trimming. She spoke with the contractor, who was polite and friendly but continued to work on the hedge and then moved to the front garden of [The tenant/s]’s property and trimmed a tree there.
As noted above, [The tenant/s] began another tenancy in another part of [Region] a few days before the formal end of this tenancy. [The tenant/s] returned to this property on Monday 4 June, intending to pick up the remainder of her belongings and dispose of rubbish that she had consolidated into a garden shed.
When she arrived at the property the arborists were there again, this time felling a large tree at the front of the property. The arborists would not allow [The tenant/s] onto the property for health and safety reasons. They asked her to come back in half an hour to an hour, which she did.
[The tenant/s] submitted that she had a limited amount of time available on that day and because of the delay she ran out of time to take away the rubbish. [The tenant/s]’s new property is a long drive from [region], and she was not able to return before the end of the tenancy on 7 June.
Landlords have a duty to not cause or permit any interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy 2 .
Ms Piper submitted that she was not informed by the owner of the property about the tree trimming / felling work. It appears that the owner had an arborist doing work on neighbouring properties and made a somewhat spontaneous decision to also have work done on this property. Ms Piper noted that the landlord is not legally obliged to give notice to the tenant if the landlord or its contractors do not go inside the house itself. 2 Section 38(2) RTA
I agree that no unlawful entry has occurred.
However, I also consider that the incident on 31 May did amount to an unreasonable interference with the tenant’s peace, comfort, and privacy.
[The tenant/s]’s tenancy was due to end the following week. It would have been sensible for the landlord to delay this noisy and disruptive work until the property was vacant.
[The tenant/s] explained that she has a head injury which makes it difficult for her to deal with noise and with situations that she is not prepared for. The incident caused her some distress, perhaps more than it would for other tenants, but an assessment of the impact on the tenant, and of compensation, must take into account the tenant’s actual experience of the incident 3 .
There is clearly no aspect of “harassment” in this instance, and exemplary damages are not warranted.
I will award compensation of $150.00 for the interference with [The tenant/s]’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy.
The incident on 5 June does not warrant a separate additional award of compensation. However, it does provide a defence to the landlord’s claim for rubbish removal. I accept [The tenant/s]’s statement that she intended to remove the rubbish on that day, that she had limited time available, and that she ran out of time because of the delay caused by the tree felling work. It would be unreasonable to expect [The tenant/s] to make a second trip back to the property given that her new tenancy was approximately an hour’s drive away. Filing fee, name suppression
Both parties have been successful or partially successful in their applications and each is entitled to be awarded the filing fee of $20.44 4 .
The tenant sought name suppression. Name suppression is granted on the grounds that the tenant has substantially succeeded in the proceedings 5 . N Blake, 04 October 2023 3 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 4 Section 102(4)(a) RTA 5 Section 95A(1) RTA

Tenancy Tribunal case 4609449 — Cleanliness at 67 Park Avenue, Kensington, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4609449 — Cleanliness at 67 Park Avenue, Kensington, Whangarei 0112

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