What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4635663 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 4635663?

Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Maintenance: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $540.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $694.19 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $750.96 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $142.08 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4635663?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4635663?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9591288-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4635663 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 4635663?

Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Maintenance: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $540.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $694.19 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $750.96 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $142.08 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4635663?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4635663?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9591288-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4635663 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4635663 — net $557.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$540.00		Rent arrears
Water rates	$142.08		Water rates
Repairs: Walls	$694.19		Repairs: Walls
Cleaning	$460.00		17. The amount claimed for cleaning is fair and reasonable.
Rubbish removal	$750.96		Rubbish removal
Compensation - damage to benchtop	$250.00		Compensation - damage to benchtop
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		42. I will award $600.00 Filing fee, bond, name suppression
Compensation: Maintenance		$600.00	Maintenance
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	42. I will award $600.00 Filing fee, bond, name suppression
Total award	$2,857.67	$620.44
Net award	$557.23
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$557.23

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 tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $557.23 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 [Bond number suppressed] to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 16 July 2010 and ended on 7 June 2023.
The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears, water rates, repairs, cleaning, and rubbish removal costs.
The tenant’s application raises issues relating to peace comfort and privacy, and maintenance.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 20 October 2023. Both parties participated in the hearing. [The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord. Landlord application Rent arrears and water
The tenant accepted these parts of the landlord’s claim. Repairs to walls
The claim seeks $694.14 per an invoice from the owners. The invoice states: Repair holes in walls 32 holes in total Repair door frame in laundry
[The tenant/s] disputed that there were 32 holes in walls. She submitted that the landlord is attempting to hold her responsible for wear and tear and general deterioration of the property.
Tenants are not liable for fair wear and tear. This was a long tenancy and there were young children at the property.
However, the landlord’s photographs do show numerous instances of damage that is beyond fair wear and tear. It is not necessary for me to determine whether the tenant is responsible for 32 holes. I am satisfied that the repair cost claimed is a reasonable and conservative claim for the extent of damage that is proven to be beyond fair wear and tear. Cleaning and rubbish removal
Tenants must remove all rubbish and leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy 1 .
[The landlord’s representative]’ photographs show that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
The owners carried out the cleaning themselves, which they are entitled to do. The hourly rate charged is reasonable.
The rubbish removal claim relates to items left on the exterior of the property. [The landlord’s representative]’ photographs show what was left behind.
[The tenant/s] submitted that some of the timber shown in the photographs is fencing rails that the owners left behind. I agree that some of the timber does appear to be fencing timber.
[The tenant/s]’ main objection to the cleaning and rubbish removal claims is that [The landlord’s representative] did not give her the opportunity to return to the property to do further cleaning and rubbish removal.
However, landlords have no obligation to allow tenants to return to the property after the end of the tenancy (except to retrieve personal belongings).
The amount claimed for cleaning is fair and reasonable.
[The tenant/s] is not liable for disposal of the fencing rails. I will award 80% of the rubbish removal cost claimed. Damage to benchtop
There are two deep cut marks on the edge of the kitchen bench.
The bench was installed approximately 18-months ago.
[The tenant/s] acknowledged that the damage was caused by her son.
[The landlord’s representative] submitted that the landlord does not intend to replace the benchtop, which is still functional, but sought compensation at the Tribunal’s discretion.
The damage is unsightly, but it does not compromise the utility benchtop or its lifespan.
I will award compensation of $250.00. 1 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) Tenant application
[The tenant/s] submitted that she was treated unfairly by [The landlord’s representative]. She felt that [The landlord’s representative] did not listen to her and that she belittled her.
Landlords have a duty to not cause or permit any interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy 2 . A breach of this duty, in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is an unlawful act 3 . Exemplary damage of up to $3,000.00 can apply.
I acknowledge [The tenant/s]’ experience of the tenancy.
I also acknowledge that [The landlord’s representative] has a different perspective.
The Tribunal must attempt to take an objective approach. The question is whether there is evidence of behaviour by the landlord that amounted to harassment of the tenant.
My finding is that harassment is not proven in this instance.
[The tenant/s] submitted that when she moved into the property the hallway had been recently painted, but the rest of the property was in average condition. There was damage to the lino in the kitchen. [The tenant/s] accepted the tenancy on the understanding that the work would be done on the house after she moved in.
[The tenant/s] submitted that the only work done during her 13-year tenancy was replacement of the bathroom vanity (when this work was done part of the lino flooring was removed, and has never been replaced) and the kitchen benchtop. The owners talked about doing other work, but never did it. The exterior of the house was cleaned in preparation for painting, but this never happened.
Earlier this year, the landlord issued notice to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that extensive repairs and renovation was required. [The landlord’s representative] submitted that the property has been substantially upgraded since [The tenant/s] vacated.
Landlords have a duty to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair 4 .
[The landlord’s representative] submitted that she understood that all of the interior was freshly painted before the start of [The tenant/s]’ tenancy, but she 2 Section 38(2) RTA 3 Section 38(3) RTA 4 Section 45(1)(b) RTA acknowledged that she can’t be certain about this because she was not the property manager at the time.
[The landlord’s representative] submitted that the repair / renovation work that was the basis of the termination was mostly to do with tenant damage rather than general repairs / maintenance.
I acknowledge the argument, although I also note that the damage claim brought against the tenant is not very substantial considering that this was a 13- year tenancy. [The landlord’s representative] also argued that it was difficult for the owners to carry out large scale jobs such as interior or exterior painting with [The tenant/s] and her family living in the property.
The tenant’s argument is more about the maintenance obligation generally rather than a failure to address any specific repair. The specific issue that [The tenant/s] did raise — the kitchen floor — was not supported by any evidence.
The fact that the tenancy was in place for 13-years and relatively little maintenance work was done does not prove that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, but it does suggest that some larger jobs were deferred or simply not attended to.
The difficulty for [The tenant/s] is that if the landlords had decided to repaint the interior (for example) several years ago, they would have had grounds to terminate [The tenant/s]’ tenancy and done the work with the property vacant.
Balancing these considerations, and having regard to the Tenancy Tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine disputes “according to the substantial merits and justice of the case” 5 , my finding is that it is appropriate to make an award of relatively nominal compensation which recognises [The tenant/s]’ genuine complaint whilst also recognising that There is no clear evidence of any specific breach of the landlord’s duty to maintain the premises.
I will award $600.00 Filing fee, bond, name suppression
Both parties have been successful or partially successful in their applications and each is entitled to recover the filing fee.
The bond will be released to the landlord.
Both parties sought name suppression. Name suppression is granted the landlord on the grounds that it has been substantially successful in the proceedings. Name suppression is granted to the tenant on the grounds that: a. She has been partially successful in the proceedings; and 5 Section 85 RTA b. Her application raised genuine issues / concerns; and c. She is re-entering the rental market after 13-years and there is a risk of unfair negative consequences if her name is published; and d. There is limited legitimate public interest in publication of the tenant’s name.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4635663 — net $557.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$540.00		Rent arrears
Water rates	$142.08		Water rates
Repairs: Walls	$694.19		Repairs: Walls
Cleaning	$460.00		17. The amount claimed for cleaning is fair and reasonable.
Rubbish removal	$750.96		Rubbish removal
Compensation - damage to benchtop	$250.00		Compensation - damage to benchtop
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		42. I will award $600.00 Filing fee, bond, name suppression
Compensation: Maintenance		$600.00	Maintenance
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	42. I will award $600.00 Filing fee, bond, name suppression
Total award	$2,857.67	$620.44
Net award	$557.23
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$557.23

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 tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $557.23 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 [Bond number suppressed] to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 16 July 2010 and ended on 7 June 2023.
The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears, water rates, repairs, cleaning, and rubbish removal costs.
The tenant’s application raises issues relating to peace comfort and privacy, and maintenance.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 20 October 2023. Both parties participated in the hearing. [The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord. Landlord application Rent arrears and water
The tenant accepted these parts of the landlord’s claim. Repairs to walls
The claim seeks $694.14 per an invoice from the owners. The invoice states: Repair holes in walls 32 holes in total Repair door frame in laundry
[The tenant/s] disputed that there were 32 holes in walls. She submitted that the landlord is attempting to hold her responsible for wear and tear and general deterioration of the property.
Tenants are not liable for fair wear and tear. This was a long tenancy and there were young children at the property.
However, the landlord’s photographs do show numerous instances of damage that is beyond fair wear and tear. It is not necessary for me to determine whether the tenant is responsible for 32 holes. I am satisfied that the repair cost claimed is a reasonable and conservative claim for the extent of damage that is proven to be beyond fair wear and tear. Cleaning and rubbish removal
Tenants must remove all rubbish and leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy 1 .
[The landlord’s representative]’ photographs show that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
The owners carried out the cleaning themselves, which they are entitled to do. The hourly rate charged is reasonable.
The rubbish removal claim relates to items left on the exterior of the property. [The landlord’s representative]’ photographs show what was left behind.
[The tenant/s] submitted that some of the timber shown in the photographs is fencing rails that the owners left behind. I agree that some of the timber does appear to be fencing timber.
[The tenant/s]’ main objection to the cleaning and rubbish removal claims is that [The landlord’s representative] did not give her the opportunity to return to the property to do further cleaning and rubbish removal.
However, landlords have no obligation to allow tenants to return to the property after the end of the tenancy (except to retrieve personal belongings).
The amount claimed for cleaning is fair and reasonable.
[The tenant/s] is not liable for disposal of the fencing rails. I will award 80% of the rubbish removal cost claimed. Damage to benchtop
There are two deep cut marks on the edge of the kitchen bench.
The bench was installed approximately 18-months ago.
[The tenant/s] acknowledged that the damage was caused by her son.
[The landlord’s representative] submitted that the landlord does not intend to replace the benchtop, which is still functional, but sought compensation at the Tribunal’s discretion.
The damage is unsightly, but it does not compromise the utility benchtop or its lifespan.
I will award compensation of $250.00. 1 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) Tenant application
[The tenant/s] submitted that she was treated unfairly by [The landlord’s representative]. She felt that [The landlord’s representative] did not listen to her and that she belittled her.
Landlords have a duty to not cause or permit any interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy 2 . A breach of this duty, in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is an unlawful act 3 . Exemplary damage of up to $3,000.00 can apply.
I acknowledge [The tenant/s]’ experience of the tenancy.
I also acknowledge that [The landlord’s representative] has a different perspective.
The Tribunal must attempt to take an objective approach. The question is whether there is evidence of behaviour by the landlord that amounted to harassment of the tenant.
My finding is that harassment is not proven in this instance.
[The tenant/s] submitted that when she moved into the property the hallway had been recently painted, but the rest of the property was in average condition. There was damage to the lino in the kitchen. [The tenant/s] accepted the tenancy on the understanding that the work would be done on the house after she moved in.
[The tenant/s] submitted that the only work done during her 13-year tenancy was replacement of the bathroom vanity (when this work was done part of the lino flooring was removed, and has never been replaced) and the kitchen benchtop. The owners talked about doing other work, but never did it. The exterior of the house was cleaned in preparation for painting, but this never happened.
Earlier this year, the landlord issued notice to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that extensive repairs and renovation was required. [The landlord’s representative] submitted that the property has been substantially upgraded since [The tenant/s] vacated.
Landlords have a duty to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair 4 .
[The landlord’s representative] submitted that she understood that all of the interior was freshly painted before the start of [The tenant/s]’ tenancy, but she 2 Section 38(2) RTA 3 Section 38(3) RTA 4 Section 45(1)(b) RTA acknowledged that she can’t be certain about this because she was not the property manager at the time.
[The landlord’s representative] submitted that the repair / renovation work that was the basis of the termination was mostly to do with tenant damage rather than general repairs / maintenance.
I acknowledge the argument, although I also note that the damage claim brought against the tenant is not very substantial considering that this was a 13- year tenancy. [The landlord’s representative] also argued that it was difficult for the owners to carry out large scale jobs such as interior or exterior painting with [The tenant/s] and her family living in the property.
The tenant’s argument is more about the maintenance obligation generally rather than a failure to address any specific repair. The specific issue that [The tenant/s] did raise — the kitchen floor — was not supported by any evidence.
The fact that the tenancy was in place for 13-years and relatively little maintenance work was done does not prove that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, but it does suggest that some larger jobs were deferred or simply not attended to.
The difficulty for [The tenant/s] is that if the landlords had decided to repaint the interior (for example) several years ago, they would have had grounds to terminate [The tenant/s]’ tenancy and done the work with the property vacant.
Balancing these considerations, and having regard to the Tenancy Tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine disputes “according to the substantial merits and justice of the case” 5 , my finding is that it is appropriate to make an award of relatively nominal compensation which recognises [The tenant/s]’ genuine complaint whilst also recognising that There is no clear evidence of any specific breach of the landlord’s duty to maintain the premises.
I will award $600.00 Filing fee, bond, name suppression
Both parties have been successful or partially successful in their applications and each is entitled to recover the filing fee.
The bond will be released to the landlord.
Both parties sought name suppression. Name suppression is granted the landlord on the grounds that it has been substantially successful in the proceedings. Name suppression is granted to the tenant on the grounds that: a. She has been partially successful in the proceedings; and 5 Section 85 RTA b. Her application raised genuine issues / concerns; and c. She is re-entering the rental market after 13-years and there is a risk of unfair negative consequences if her name is published; and d. There is limited legitimate public interest in publication of the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4635663 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4635663 — Property damage

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