What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4636429 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 4636429?

Compensation: $1,460.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4636429 D…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $13,348.58 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4636429?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4636429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10003017-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4636429 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 4636429?

Compensation: $1,460.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4636429 D…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $13,348.58 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4636429?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4636429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10003017-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

70A Churton Drive, Churton Park, Wellington 6037 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4636429 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

70A Churton Drive, Churton Park, Wellington 6037 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4636429 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4636429 — net $11,708.58 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 21/2/24	$13,348.58		Rent arrears to 21/2/24
Lawns and Garden work: weeding	$200.00		Lawns and Garden work: weeding
Compensation	$1,460.00		Compensation
Curtain repair	$120.00		Curtain repair
Previous order application 4636429 dated 19/01/2024		$500.00	Previous order application 4636429 dated 19/01/2024
Total award	$15,128.58	$500.00
Net award	$11,708.58
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,708.58

Claims and awards for application 4636429 — net $11,708.58 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 21/2/24

Amount: $13,348.58
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 21/2/24

Lawns and Garden work: weeding

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work: weeding

Compensation

Amount: $1,460.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Compensation

Curtain repair

Amount: $120.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Curtain repair

Previous order application 4636429 dated 19/01/2024

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Previous order application 4636429 dated 19/01/2024

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay The Somerset Trust Simon Nottingham $11,708.58 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to The Somerset Trust Simon Nottingham immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Sadly, this tenancy has a lengthy history in the Tribunal since its commencement in March 2023. Within a week of moving in, the tenants had applied to the Tribunal to reduce the fixed term (12 months). That application was dismissed by Tribunal Order on 11 July along with other orders.
Two weeks later the tenants applied to the Tribunal again for compensation and exemplary damages for other alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by the landlord. The landlord cross applied for compensation. Those claims were dealt with in hearing and decision on 19 January 2024. At that hearing the landlord made a further oral application for compensation and rent arrears on the basis the tenants had abandoned the tenancy.
This decision relates to the landlord’s latter claims and incorporates the direction from 19 January that the landlords pay the tenants $500 compensation. I note that post the 19 January Order Mrs Nottingham has asked for the decision regarding the curtains to be revisited. It has been explained to her that this can only be considered by way of rehearing application. Accordingly, I do not look at that issue within this decision.

How much is owed for rent?

On 20 December 2023 [The tenant/s] advised Mr Nottingham that his family had vacated the tenancy. In response Mr Nottingham asked him to reconsider and on advice from Tenancy Services, served him with a 14-day notice to remedy seeking that he continue paying rent as the fixed term tenancy was still in place.
Mr Nottingham now seeks rent arrears to the hearing date on the basis that they have not yet found a replacement tenancy and had not agreed to end the fixed term tenancy early.
[The tenant/s] submission is that they had agreed to end the term early and it was on that basis that they vacated the tenancy. He says that Mr Nottingham made three offers to end the tenancy on 22 July, 18 August and 18 September (third offer). Each offered different terms and they refused the first two. In response to the third offer he thanked Mr Nottingham and advised he would respond as soon as possible.
Sadly, shortly after, [The tenant/s]’s mother got very ill, and he had to travel back to Malaysia to care for her until she passed. During this time, he also lost his employment. On the basis that the Nottinghams had offered to release them from the tenancy, they had commenced securing a replacement and he understands his prospective new landlord contacted Mr Nottingham during that process, so he was aware.
When he secured the new tenancy, he advised Mr Nottingham that he was now in a position to come to agreement over the terms for ending the tenancy. By this time (27 November) however, Mr Nottingham had had enough and declined to engage in such a discussion. [The tenant/s] attempted to negotiate but getting no further with Mr Nottingham, and given he had signed a new tenancy, they left the property on 20 December. The law
As discussed with the parties at the various hearings and in my decision of 19 July, fixed term tenancies can only be ended by Tribunal Order, or agreement. Agreement can only be reached if the essential elements are met, they are: i. There must be a clear offer as to terms. ii. There must be a clear acceptance of those terms. iii. The parties must have both intended to create a legal relationship with this agreement. iv. There must be consideration. v. Both parties must have the capacity to contract.
In this instance I am not satisfied that there was a clear offer that was plainly accepted. The terms noted in Mr Nottingham’s email of 18 September are relatively vague when considered as a whole and represent more of a continuation of discussion rather than anything more substantive.
Even if I am wrong in that finding, there was no acceptance of that offer for two months. Given previous offers had gone unanswered, those silences being intended and deemed as declines, I find that the Nottinghams were entitled to read into the tenants’ silence as a rejection of this offer as well.
I understand [The tenant/s]’s reasoning for not responding clearly; his mother was dying, and he lost his employment. He also genuinely believed that he needed to secure a replacement tenancy, i.e., another home to go to, before he committed to this offer, otherwise he may find himself with nowhere for his family to live. It was a very difficult time for the family.
Despite this misunderstanding, the situation remains that there was no legally binding agreement entered into by the parties ending the fixed term tenancy. It therefore continued, despite the tenants vacating. It has now ended by virtue of the landlords taking back possession of the property.
Accordingly, the claim for rent arrears to the hearing date must be approved.

Are the tenants liable for costs associated with ending the tenancy early?

Mr Nottingham makes several claims related to having to end the tenancy early. Specifically, he seeks: a. $249 reimbursement of the advertising cost. b. $2,815.83 compensation for the breach of the fixed term tenancy. This amounts to the rent he could have expected from the hearing date to the end of the tenancy.
The requirements around recovery of expenses incurred by a landlord when agreeing to end a fixed term tenancy early are set out in section 44A of the RTA. This section is not however relevant here as I have found that there was no agreement between the parties to end the tenancy early. Accordingly, I am being asked to consider the situation as a breach of contract.
Mr Nottingham argues that he was put to the time and costs of having to re- tenant the property several months earlier than he had planned for in March at the end of the fixed term. He therefore should be compensated for this.
The tenants argue in response that they did not leave the tenancy willingly and did so by agreement. As earlier stated, I do not find that there was an enforceable agreement to end the tenancy early. I also do not accept that the tenants left the tenancy unwillingly. They did not want to stay and so made arrangements to find another tenancy. Accordingly, I find that the tenants, although not intentionally, have breached the tenancy agreement.
A tenant has a contractual obligation to perform a fixed term tenancy and its rights do not include the right to break it: it is different from an assignment situation, for example, where consent of the landlord cannot be unreasonably withheld. Flowing from that, it is a legitimate interest for the owner not to be out of pocket if the tenant breaches that contract.
I do not find it reasonable for the tenants to reimburse the advertising cost as the Nottingham’s would have incurred that cost within two months anyway. It was therefore not an unanticipated cost and was incurred only slightly earlier than expected. There was never any doubt that the tenancy would end at the latest on 19 March 2024. This claim must therefore be dismissed.
I do find however that the Nottinghams would be out of pocket if they did not receive rent until a new tenancy is secured or 19 March, whichever the sooner. Mr Nottingham’s evidence is that he has been trying to secure replacement tenants actively since 19 January but as yet does not have new tenants. They have raised the rent slightly but that is in keeping with the median rental rate as advised by Tenancy Services 1 . They do accept they are being more selective over the applicants than they would have been in the past due to their experience in this tenancy. 1 Market rent » Tenancy Services
[The tenant/s] submits that it is unrealistic for this property to be advertised at $750 per week. He says they unknowingly overpaid at $730 per week and so in having the price this high it is unsurprising they do not have applicants. He submits that the average price for a 3 bedroomed home in this area is $665 per week as taken from Property Value 2 data.
The data held by Tenancy Services is from bonds lodged therefore it is limited in its accuracy as it does not reference amenities, however it is seen as a baseline indication for rentals. Tenancy Services states as follows for the area for the period July to December 2023: SIZE LOWER QUARTILE MEDIAN RENT UPPER QUARTILE 3 bedroom$700$770$795
No evidence has been presented as to how Property Value compiles its data. Accordingly, I accept the evidence that this property being market at $750 is in line with market rents. I also accept that in March the landlord was entitled 3 to increase the rent from $730 and that a $20 increase is in line with the market.
I do not find it established in evidence that in marketing the property at $750 per week the Nottinghams were effectively preventing it from being rented, nor as [The tenant/s] put it, were they victimising him and his family; they were simply trying to ensure they were not out of pocket.
I must however take into account a reasonable marketing time. This property has been advertised for a little over a month now. A reasonable time period for an active marketing campaign for a house of this nature I would not expect to last more than 6 weeks. Accordingly, I find compensation of $1460, being the equivalent of 2 weeks’ rent to be reasonable.
In coming to this finding, I have also considered that the Nottinghams had previously advised the tenants that the fixed term would not be continued as they intended to undertake renovations. With this intention in mind, they now have the property in their possession and can undertake those renovations as they wished.

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, including the garden, reasonably clean. 4 The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca). The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. 2 PropertyValue.co.nz - Make smarter property decisions 3 Pursuant to section 24 of the RTA 4 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
Mr Nottingham seeks compensation for having to trim the hedges and weed the garden. He says that the weeds were overgrown when the tenants moved out and as such, he had to pay a contractor $50 an hour for 5 hours to weed the garden.
The photos both parties provided show that there were weeds in the garden and pathways when the tenants vacated. [The tenant/s] gave evidence that he paid a gardener to attend to the gardens regularly throughout the tenancy. This issue had been raised in a 14-day notice issued by the Nottinghams in May. It advised the tenants that they needed to mow the lawns and weed the gardens.
[The tenant/s] showed that notice to a gardener and arranged for him to attend to the gardens regularly which he did throughout. She therefore thought that he was ensuring they were complying with the 14-day notice. However, all he did was mow the lawns, not any weeding. Therefore, by the time they moved out, the weeds were significant. I accept that the tenants, although mistakenly, had thought they were attending to their responsibilities, especially as the issue had not been raised again.
Despite their efforts, the tenants had not complied with their legal responsibility to weed the garden. I accept that this was a misunderstanding however it remained their responsibility and accordingly the landlord is entitled to compensation.
[The tenant/s] raises several issues with the invoice provided by Mr Nottingham for the work. Firstly, it is issued by a company Mr Nottingham is a director of. Secondly, it is dated 17 December which is prior to when they vacated. Thirdly it is not specific.
Mr Nottingham explains that his company paid a contractor in cash which is why he invoiced. He was not able to be specific about how long it exactly took the contractor and how much he exactly paid the contractor.
Mr Nottingham was here complying with his requirement pursuant to section 49 of the RTA to mitigate the loss by employing a reasonably priced contractor. However, he still needs to establish that he is claiming for the exact cost he was put to in remedying the breach and that that claim is reasonable.
It is not in line with other commercial rates that the Tribunal sees for a gardener to be paid $50 per hour. Further, the lack of specificity of the invoice, including the discrepancy in the date, means that it is difficult to ascertain exactly the cost incurred. Therefore, in viewing the photos of the work required and bearing in mind a reasonable rate, I consider that an award of $200 is reasonable, including disposal costs.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The Nottinghams claim compensation for having to replace a kitchen blind and repair a lounge curtain. They say both were broken when the tenants moved out and they have had to be repaired. They also seek compensation for repairing the security screen door. Curtains/blinds
The tenants are clear that they were not broken when they returned possession to the Nottingham’s. They have provided a photo of the blind in use which is different to Mrs Nottingham’s photo showing is hanging askew. They say they used the lounge curtains up until they left with no issue.
To succeed in a claim for compensation for damage, a landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The evidentiary burden lies with the landlords at the outset and the standard of proof required is the civil standard of balance of probabilities. I consider that it has not been met here with respect to the blind. The blind replacement invoice does not detail the work that was done and there is no evidence that it was careless use that created the blockage in the cords. Blinds do malfunction over time; that is fair wear and tear.
The Nottinghams did not advise the tenants of the damage when they were made aware of it, and despite the tenancy continuing they did not direct them to repair the issue as they should have. Accordingly, I do not find it established that the issue with the blinds was anything more than fair wear and tear and as such must decline the claim.
The curtains however are different. The evidence is that the cord had been knotted which indicates that the tenants did something to the cord. They did not notify the Nottinghams of any issue and yet left the cord tied up and malfunctional. Accordingly, I find it more likely than not that the cord was damaged by careless use and find the tenants liable for the repair cost. I accept Ms Nottingham’s advice of the cost being $120. Screen door
Mr Nottingham submits that the screen door was in perfect condition at the beginning of the tenancy as evidenced by the fact it is not noted as an issue in the property inspection both parties signed. It now has two holes in it, and he has been quoted approximately $300 to have it repaired or replaced. [The tenant/s] says the holes were there and developing throughout the tenancy.
This issue was a part of the original application of the tenants’. It was not in their original application documentation submitted in March as that was focussed on their son’s health, but it was included in documentation submitted prior to the hearing in July. At no point did the Nottinghams raise the concern that the tenants had made or contributed to the holes in the screen door even when the matter was discussed in the hearing.
I accept their submission that they did not raise it as there were more important matters to address. However, I must take into account that evidence along with the fact they did not raise it with the tenants prior to this application and there is no specific evidence of the door’s state at the commencement of the tenancy.
Mrs Nottingham submits that the door has been slashed. The photos do not show a slashing, but holes in the areas of the door that would be touched when used.
As above, I do not find that the evidence has established that these holes occurred as anything more than fair wear and tear. Accordingly, the claim is dismissed. Suppression
The tenants have applied for suppression and as they were successful in their initial application to an extent and successful to an extent in their defence, I approve that claim. Other
I note that post hearing the tenants asked to come to a payment plan with the owners and negotiations to that extent were facilitated through court registry. That offer was refused by the owners.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4636429 — net $11,708.58 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 21/2/24	$13,348.58		Rent arrears to 21/2/24
Lawns and Garden work: weeding	$200.00		Lawns and Garden work: weeding
Compensation	$1,460.00		Compensation
Curtain repair	$120.00		Curtain repair
Previous order application 4636429 dated 19/01/2024		$500.00	Previous order application 4636429 dated 19/01/2024
Total award	$15,128.58	$500.00
Net award	$11,708.58
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11,708.58

Claims and awards for application 4636429 — net $11,708.58 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 21/2/24

Amount: $13,348.58
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 21/2/24

Lawns and Garden work: weeding

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work: weeding

Compensation

Amount: $1,460.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Compensation

Curtain repair

Amount: $120.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Curtain repair

Previous order application 4636429 dated 19/01/2024

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Previous order application 4636429 dated 19/01/2024

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay The Somerset Trust Simon Nottingham $11,708.58 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to The Somerset Trust Simon Nottingham immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Sadly, this tenancy has a lengthy history in the Tribunal since its commencement in March 2023. Within a week of moving in, the tenants had applied to the Tribunal to reduce the fixed term (12 months). That application was dismissed by Tribunal Order on 11 July along with other orders.
Two weeks later the tenants applied to the Tribunal again for compensation and exemplary damages for other alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by the landlord. The landlord cross applied for compensation. Those claims were dealt with in hearing and decision on 19 January 2024. At that hearing the landlord made a further oral application for compensation and rent arrears on the basis the tenants had abandoned the tenancy.
This decision relates to the landlord’s latter claims and incorporates the direction from 19 January that the landlords pay the tenants $500 compensation. I note that post the 19 January Order Mrs Nottingham has asked for the decision regarding the curtains to be revisited. It has been explained to her that this can only be considered by way of rehearing application. Accordingly, I do not look at that issue within this decision.

How much is owed for rent?

On 20 December 2023 [The tenant/s] advised Mr Nottingham that his family had vacated the tenancy. In response Mr Nottingham asked him to reconsider and on advice from Tenancy Services, served him with a 14-day notice to remedy seeking that he continue paying rent as the fixed term tenancy was still in place.
Mr Nottingham now seeks rent arrears to the hearing date on the basis that they have not yet found a replacement tenancy and had not agreed to end the fixed term tenancy early.
[The tenant/s] submission is that they had agreed to end the term early and it was on that basis that they vacated the tenancy. He says that Mr Nottingham made three offers to end the tenancy on 22 July, 18 August and 18 September (third offer). Each offered different terms and they refused the first two. In response to the third offer he thanked Mr Nottingham and advised he would respond as soon as possible.
Sadly, shortly after, [The tenant/s]’s mother got very ill, and he had to travel back to Malaysia to care for her until she passed. During this time, he also lost his employment. On the basis that the Nottinghams had offered to release them from the tenancy, they had commenced securing a replacement and he understands his prospective new landlord contacted Mr Nottingham during that process, so he was aware.
When he secured the new tenancy, he advised Mr Nottingham that he was now in a position to come to agreement over the terms for ending the tenancy. By this time (27 November) however, Mr Nottingham had had enough and declined to engage in such a discussion. [The tenant/s] attempted to negotiate but getting no further with Mr Nottingham, and given he had signed a new tenancy, they left the property on 20 December. The law
As discussed with the parties at the various hearings and in my decision of 19 July, fixed term tenancies can only be ended by Tribunal Order, or agreement. Agreement can only be reached if the essential elements are met, they are: i. There must be a clear offer as to terms. ii. There must be a clear acceptance of those terms. iii. The parties must have both intended to create a legal relationship with this agreement. iv. There must be consideration. v. Both parties must have the capacity to contract.
In this instance I am not satisfied that there was a clear offer that was plainly accepted. The terms noted in Mr Nottingham’s email of 18 September are relatively vague when considered as a whole and represent more of a continuation of discussion rather than anything more substantive.
Even if I am wrong in that finding, there was no acceptance of that offer for two months. Given previous offers had gone unanswered, those silences being intended and deemed as declines, I find that the Nottinghams were entitled to read into the tenants’ silence as a rejection of this offer as well.
I understand [The tenant/s]’s reasoning for not responding clearly; his mother was dying, and he lost his employment. He also genuinely believed that he needed to secure a replacement tenancy, i.e., another home to go to, before he committed to this offer, otherwise he may find himself with nowhere for his family to live. It was a very difficult time for the family.
Despite this misunderstanding, the situation remains that there was no legally binding agreement entered into by the parties ending the fixed term tenancy. It therefore continued, despite the tenants vacating. It has now ended by virtue of the landlords taking back possession of the property.
Accordingly, the claim for rent arrears to the hearing date must be approved.

Are the tenants liable for costs associated with ending the tenancy early?

Mr Nottingham makes several claims related to having to end the tenancy early. Specifically, he seeks: a. $249 reimbursement of the advertising cost. b. $2,815.83 compensation for the breach of the fixed term tenancy. This amounts to the rent he could have expected from the hearing date to the end of the tenancy.
The requirements around recovery of expenses incurred by a landlord when agreeing to end a fixed term tenancy early are set out in section 44A of the RTA. This section is not however relevant here as I have found that there was no agreement between the parties to end the tenancy early. Accordingly, I am being asked to consider the situation as a breach of contract.
Mr Nottingham argues that he was put to the time and costs of having to re- tenant the property several months earlier than he had planned for in March at the end of the fixed term. He therefore should be compensated for this.
The tenants argue in response that they did not leave the tenancy willingly and did so by agreement. As earlier stated, I do not find that there was an enforceable agreement to end the tenancy early. I also do not accept that the tenants left the tenancy unwillingly. They did not want to stay and so made arrangements to find another tenancy. Accordingly, I find that the tenants, although not intentionally, have breached the tenancy agreement.
A tenant has a contractual obligation to perform a fixed term tenancy and its rights do not include the right to break it: it is different from an assignment situation, for example, where consent of the landlord cannot be unreasonably withheld. Flowing from that, it is a legitimate interest for the owner not to be out of pocket if the tenant breaches that contract.
I do not find it reasonable for the tenants to reimburse the advertising cost as the Nottingham’s would have incurred that cost within two months anyway. It was therefore not an unanticipated cost and was incurred only slightly earlier than expected. There was never any doubt that the tenancy would end at the latest on 19 March 2024. This claim must therefore be dismissed.
I do find however that the Nottinghams would be out of pocket if they did not receive rent until a new tenancy is secured or 19 March, whichever the sooner. Mr Nottingham’s evidence is that he has been trying to secure replacement tenants actively since 19 January but as yet does not have new tenants. They have raised the rent slightly but that is in keeping with the median rental rate as advised by Tenancy Services 1 . They do accept they are being more selective over the applicants than they would have been in the past due to their experience in this tenancy. 1 Market rent » Tenancy Services
[The tenant/s] submits that it is unrealistic for this property to be advertised at $750 per week. He says they unknowingly overpaid at $730 per week and so in having the price this high it is unsurprising they do not have applicants. He submits that the average price for a 3 bedroomed home in this area is $665 per week as taken from Property Value 2 data.
The data held by Tenancy Services is from bonds lodged therefore it is limited in its accuracy as it does not reference amenities, however it is seen as a baseline indication for rentals. Tenancy Services states as follows for the area for the period July to December 2023: SIZE LOWER QUARTILE MEDIAN RENT UPPER QUARTILE 3 bedroom$700$770$795
No evidence has been presented as to how Property Value compiles its data. Accordingly, I accept the evidence that this property being market at $750 is in line with market rents. I also accept that in March the landlord was entitled 3 to increase the rent from $730 and that a $20 increase is in line with the market.
I do not find it established in evidence that in marketing the property at $750 per week the Nottinghams were effectively preventing it from being rented, nor as [The tenant/s] put it, were they victimising him and his family; they were simply trying to ensure they were not out of pocket.
I must however take into account a reasonable marketing time. This property has been advertised for a little over a month now. A reasonable time period for an active marketing campaign for a house of this nature I would not expect to last more than 6 weeks. Accordingly, I find compensation of $1460, being the equivalent of 2 weeks’ rent to be reasonable.
In coming to this finding, I have also considered that the Nottinghams had previously advised the tenants that the fixed term would not be continued as they intended to undertake renovations. With this intention in mind, they now have the property in their possession and can undertake those renovations as they wished.

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, including the garden, reasonably clean. 4 The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca). The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. 2 PropertyValue.co.nz - Make smarter property decisions 3 Pursuant to section 24 of the RTA 4 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
Mr Nottingham seeks compensation for having to trim the hedges and weed the garden. He says that the weeds were overgrown when the tenants moved out and as such, he had to pay a contractor $50 an hour for 5 hours to weed the garden.
The photos both parties provided show that there were weeds in the garden and pathways when the tenants vacated. [The tenant/s] gave evidence that he paid a gardener to attend to the gardens regularly throughout the tenancy. This issue had been raised in a 14-day notice issued by the Nottinghams in May. It advised the tenants that they needed to mow the lawns and weed the gardens.
[The tenant/s] showed that notice to a gardener and arranged for him to attend to the gardens regularly which he did throughout. She therefore thought that he was ensuring they were complying with the 14-day notice. However, all he did was mow the lawns, not any weeding. Therefore, by the time they moved out, the weeds were significant. I accept that the tenants, although mistakenly, had thought they were attending to their responsibilities, especially as the issue had not been raised again.
Despite their efforts, the tenants had not complied with their legal responsibility to weed the garden. I accept that this was a misunderstanding however it remained their responsibility and accordingly the landlord is entitled to compensation.
[The tenant/s] raises several issues with the invoice provided by Mr Nottingham for the work. Firstly, it is issued by a company Mr Nottingham is a director of. Secondly, it is dated 17 December which is prior to when they vacated. Thirdly it is not specific.
Mr Nottingham explains that his company paid a contractor in cash which is why he invoiced. He was not able to be specific about how long it exactly took the contractor and how much he exactly paid the contractor.
Mr Nottingham was here complying with his requirement pursuant to section 49 of the RTA to mitigate the loss by employing a reasonably priced contractor. However, he still needs to establish that he is claiming for the exact cost he was put to in remedying the breach and that that claim is reasonable.
It is not in line with other commercial rates that the Tribunal sees for a gardener to be paid $50 per hour. Further, the lack of specificity of the invoice, including the discrepancy in the date, means that it is difficult to ascertain exactly the cost incurred. Therefore, in viewing the photos of the work required and bearing in mind a reasonable rate, I consider that an award of $200 is reasonable, including disposal costs.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The Nottinghams claim compensation for having to replace a kitchen blind and repair a lounge curtain. They say both were broken when the tenants moved out and they have had to be repaired. They also seek compensation for repairing the security screen door. Curtains/blinds
The tenants are clear that they were not broken when they returned possession to the Nottingham’s. They have provided a photo of the blind in use which is different to Mrs Nottingham’s photo showing is hanging askew. They say they used the lounge curtains up until they left with no issue.
To succeed in a claim for compensation for damage, a landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The evidentiary burden lies with the landlords at the outset and the standard of proof required is the civil standard of balance of probabilities. I consider that it has not been met here with respect to the blind. The blind replacement invoice does not detail the work that was done and there is no evidence that it was careless use that created the blockage in the cords. Blinds do malfunction over time; that is fair wear and tear.
The Nottinghams did not advise the tenants of the damage when they were made aware of it, and despite the tenancy continuing they did not direct them to repair the issue as they should have. Accordingly, I do not find it established that the issue with the blinds was anything more than fair wear and tear and as such must decline the claim.
The curtains however are different. The evidence is that the cord had been knotted which indicates that the tenants did something to the cord. They did not notify the Nottinghams of any issue and yet left the cord tied up and malfunctional. Accordingly, I find it more likely than not that the cord was damaged by careless use and find the tenants liable for the repair cost. I accept Ms Nottingham’s advice of the cost being $120. Screen door
Mr Nottingham submits that the screen door was in perfect condition at the beginning of the tenancy as evidenced by the fact it is not noted as an issue in the property inspection both parties signed. It now has two holes in it, and he has been quoted approximately $300 to have it repaired or replaced. [The tenant/s] says the holes were there and developing throughout the tenancy.
This issue was a part of the original application of the tenants’. It was not in their original application documentation submitted in March as that was focussed on their son’s health, but it was included in documentation submitted prior to the hearing in July. At no point did the Nottinghams raise the concern that the tenants had made or contributed to the holes in the screen door even when the matter was discussed in the hearing.
I accept their submission that they did not raise it as there were more important matters to address. However, I must take into account that evidence along with the fact they did not raise it with the tenants prior to this application and there is no specific evidence of the door’s state at the commencement of the tenancy.
Mrs Nottingham submits that the door has been slashed. The photos do not show a slashing, but holes in the areas of the door that would be touched when used.
As above, I do not find that the evidence has established that these holes occurred as anything more than fair wear and tear. Accordingly, the claim is dismissed. Suppression
The tenants have applied for suppression and as they were successful in their initial application to an extent and successful to an extent in their defence, I approve that claim. Other
I note that post hearing the tenants asked to come to a payment plan with the owners and negotiations to that extent were facilitated through court registry. That offer was refused by the owners.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4636429 — Rent arrears at 70A Churton Drive, Churton Park, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4636429 — Rent arrears at 70A Churton Drive, Churton Park, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Are the tenants liable for costs associated with ending the tenancy early?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Are the tenants liable for costs associated with ending the tenancy early?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions