What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4656770?

The tribunal order states: Storm King must pay Team Group Rentals Limited Deepti Lala $2,538.44

How much money was awarded in case 4656770?

Cleaning: $518.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $290.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $410.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Owed From 11 July - 4 September…: $4,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4656770?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4656770?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10208060-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4656770?

The tribunal order states: Storm King must pay Team Group Rentals Limited Deepti Lala $2,538.44

How much money was awarded in case 4656770?

Cleaning: $518.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $290.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $410.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Owed From 11 July - 4 September…: $4,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4656770?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4656770?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10208060-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7B Zetland Street, Highbury, Wellington 6012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4656770 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4656770 — net $2,538.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent owed from 11 July - 4 September 2023	$4,200.00		Rent owed from 11 July - 4 September 2023
Cleaning	$290.00		Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$518.00		Carpet Cleaning
Insurance excess for replacement carpet	$1,100.00		Insurance excess for replacement carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: bond lodged late		$500.00	bond lodged late
Compensation: loss of amenity		$410.00	loss of amenity
Total award	$6,128.44	$910.00
Net award	$2,538.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,538.44

Order

Storm King must pay Team Group Rentals Limited Deepti Lala $2,538.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,680.00 (5253439-021) to Team Group Rentals Limited Deepti Lala immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the second hearing of these applications.
My decision from the first hearing has not been published because I was not sure about final orders for name suppression. I made orders to clarify the claims and adjourned. Some claims were decided, but final orders were not made. The reasons from my first order are repeated here: Reasons hearing 1:
Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant appeared by telephone. The tenant filed a late cross application which the landlord only saw yesterday. I have done as much as I can today and the matter is adjourned.
The parties will be notified in writing by Tenancy Services of the date and time of the next hearing.
I have joined the owner as a party to the tenant’s application. This is because the claims against the landlord relate to the period of time Deepti Lala was acting as landlord. Team Group Rentals Limited took over the management on 11 July 2023.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), breaches with the bond lodgement, breach of the duty to maintain the plumbing, the kitchen floor, the wiring, and for the smoke alarms.
I have heard most of the landlord’s application and some claims have been decided. I have not made an order the tenant pay the landlord yet because the matter is not finalised, and any successful claims in favour of the tenant will be taken into account. The tenancy ended on 4 September 2023. The amount owed for rent arrears to 4 September is agreed.

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

Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085- 14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
The landlord has claimed compensation for the cost of cleaning. The tenant said she left the house reasonable at the end of the tenancy. I have carefully considered the photos provided by the landlord and the cleaning invoice. I find the house needed additional cleaning and I allow $290. I have not allowed for cleaning ceilings. I have also allowed the claim for carpet cleaning. I have good photos, and an invoice from Jae which states there were stains and a smell of dog that they were not able to remove. The tenant agreed there were spills during her tenancy and there was a dog there for about two weeks. The amount ordered seems reasonable to me.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the kitchen door?

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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord provided a photo taken at the end of the tenancy showing a large crack running down the kitchen door. The tenant said the door had a crack in it at the start of the tenancy, and that got worse in the time she lived there. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. There are no photos showing me the condition of the door at the start of the tenancy and so this claim is dismissed.

Was there a breach of the HHS?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019. The compliance date for this tenancy is 120 days after the tenancy start date, which was on 6 June 2023. This tenancy ended before the 120 days ran out. I find there has been no breach of the HHS and the tenant’s claims for heating and draughts are dismissed. Reasons hearing 2:

Should the tenant pay for replacement carpet?

There is a claim for new carpet in two rooms. The landlord’s insurer paid the owner, less two excesses of $550. I have seen the photos taken at the end of the tenancy, read the carpet cleaning invoice, and seen an email from Jae recommending the carpet be replaced because of the many stains and the “strong dog smell”.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Given the extent of the damage it seems most likely to me the damage was intentional. This claim is proved and allowed.

Did the owner breach the duty to lodge the bond?

The tenant claims the owner did not lodge the bond within the required time. The tenant said the bond was paid to the owner on 3 June 2023 and it was not lodged until 25 July 2023, after the property managers took over. A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(1), (2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The property manager submitted the instructions from the owner were that the tenant delayed signing the bond form. The tenant denied this, saying she signed everything at the start of the tenancy. I can see the date on the bond form and on the tenancy agreement are the same – 1 June 2023. It seems most likely to me the bond form was properly signed, and the delay was due to the owner, who was acting as the landlord at the time. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
It seems most likely to me the landlord/owner acted intentionally and made up an excuse to justify not lodging the bond. The tenant had to chase the landlord, so there was extra work for her. It is in tenants’ interests that bonds are held by an independent third party, and there is public interest that landlords pay exemplary damages if they ignore the RTA. I allow $500 which is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar breaches by the landlord, and because the property manager acted promptly to lodge the bond in July.

Should the tenant get compensation because of the maintenance?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA by not maintaining the tenancy premises. The tenant was concerned the house was draughty, cold, and damp. She said she raised her concerns with the owner verbally and nothing was done. The property managers submitted they were not aware of any problems with draughts until a HHS assessment was carried out on 22 August 2023, where significant gaps were identified. However, I have seen an email sent by the property manager on 31 July 2023 which refers to a 14 day letter, and “holes”. I find the tenant has proved the house was draughty. There was a loss of amenity for the tenant because she was paying rent for a house free from holes, and compensation should be allowed for this from the time she can prove she brought the issue to the landlord’s attention. I find $410 is a reasonable amount, which equates about $80 a week. I have taken into account that it was winter.
The tenant also claimed compensation because of problems with the wiring and because she had to pay for a plumber to unblock the sink not long after she moved in. She did not provide me with sufficient evidence to prove these claims and they are dismissed.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenant said there was a breach of quiet enjoyment because the tenant downstairs banged on the ceiling and made complaints to the landlord about noise. The landlord would then message the tenant and ask her to keep the noise down. The tenant said that she and her daughter lived normally in the unit but the downstairs tenant was unreasonable. She also felt harassed when the landlord assumed she was the one doing wrong. The RTA states that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I have read the messages and the emails between the tenant and the landlord and the owner during the tenancy. Based on these I am not persuaded the tenant has proved there was a breach of quiet enjoyment. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The bond is refunded to the landlord.
The tenant’s application for suppression is not allowed because she is not the most successful party and there is public interest in names when there are breaches of the RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4656770 — net $2,538.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent owed from 11 July - 4 September 2023	$4,200.00		Rent owed from 11 July - 4 September 2023
Cleaning	$290.00		Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$518.00		Carpet Cleaning
Insurance excess for replacement carpet	$1,100.00		Insurance excess for replacement carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: bond lodged late		$500.00	bond lodged late
Compensation: loss of amenity		$410.00	loss of amenity
Total award	$6,128.44	$910.00
Net award	$2,538.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,538.44

Order

Storm King must pay Team Group Rentals Limited Deepti Lala $2,538.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,680.00 (5253439-021) to Team Group Rentals Limited Deepti Lala immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the second hearing of these applications.
My decision from the first hearing has not been published because I was not sure about final orders for name suppression. I made orders to clarify the claims and adjourned. Some claims were decided, but final orders were not made. The reasons from my first order are repeated here: Reasons hearing 1:
Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant appeared by telephone. The tenant filed a late cross application which the landlord only saw yesterday. I have done as much as I can today and the matter is adjourned.
The parties will be notified in writing by Tenancy Services of the date and time of the next hearing.
I have joined the owner as a party to the tenant’s application. This is because the claims against the landlord relate to the period of time Deepti Lala was acting as landlord. Team Group Rentals Limited took over the management on 11 July 2023.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), breaches with the bond lodgement, breach of the duty to maintain the plumbing, the kitchen floor, the wiring, and for the smoke alarms.
I have heard most of the landlord’s application and some claims have been decided. I have not made an order the tenant pay the landlord yet because the matter is not finalised, and any successful claims in favour of the tenant will be taken into account. The tenancy ended on 4 September 2023. The amount owed for rent arrears to 4 September is agreed.

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

Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085- 14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
The landlord has claimed compensation for the cost of cleaning. The tenant said she left the house reasonable at the end of the tenancy. I have carefully considered the photos provided by the landlord and the cleaning invoice. I find the house needed additional cleaning and I allow $290. I have not allowed for cleaning ceilings. I have also allowed the claim for carpet cleaning. I have good photos, and an invoice from Jae which states there were stains and a smell of dog that they were not able to remove. The tenant agreed there were spills during her tenancy and there was a dog there for about two weeks. The amount ordered seems reasonable to me.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the kitchen door?

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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord provided a photo taken at the end of the tenancy showing a large crack running down the kitchen door. The tenant said the door had a crack in it at the start of the tenancy, and that got worse in the time she lived there. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. There are no photos showing me the condition of the door at the start of the tenancy and so this claim is dismissed.

Was there a breach of the HHS?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019. The compliance date for this tenancy is 120 days after the tenancy start date, which was on 6 June 2023. This tenancy ended before the 120 days ran out. I find there has been no breach of the HHS and the tenant’s claims for heating and draughts are dismissed. Reasons hearing 2:

Should the tenant pay for replacement carpet?

There is a claim for new carpet in two rooms. The landlord’s insurer paid the owner, less two excesses of $550. I have seen the photos taken at the end of the tenancy, read the carpet cleaning invoice, and seen an email from Jae recommending the carpet be replaced because of the many stains and the “strong dog smell”.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Given the extent of the damage it seems most likely to me the damage was intentional. This claim is proved and allowed.

Did the owner breach the duty to lodge the bond?

The tenant claims the owner did not lodge the bond within the required time. The tenant said the bond was paid to the owner on 3 June 2023 and it was not lodged until 25 July 2023, after the property managers took over. A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(1), (2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The property manager submitted the instructions from the owner were that the tenant delayed signing the bond form. The tenant denied this, saying she signed everything at the start of the tenancy. I can see the date on the bond form and on the tenancy agreement are the same – 1 June 2023. It seems most likely to me the bond form was properly signed, and the delay was due to the owner, who was acting as the landlord at the time. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
It seems most likely to me the landlord/owner acted intentionally and made up an excuse to justify not lodging the bond. The tenant had to chase the landlord, so there was extra work for her. It is in tenants’ interests that bonds are held by an independent third party, and there is public interest that landlords pay exemplary damages if they ignore the RTA. I allow $500 which is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar breaches by the landlord, and because the property manager acted promptly to lodge the bond in July.

Should the tenant get compensation because of the maintenance?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA by not maintaining the tenancy premises. The tenant was concerned the house was draughty, cold, and damp. She said she raised her concerns with the owner verbally and nothing was done. The property managers submitted they were not aware of any problems with draughts until a HHS assessment was carried out on 22 August 2023, where significant gaps were identified. However, I have seen an email sent by the property manager on 31 July 2023 which refers to a 14 day letter, and “holes”. I find the tenant has proved the house was draughty. There was a loss of amenity for the tenant because she was paying rent for a house free from holes, and compensation should be allowed for this from the time she can prove she brought the issue to the landlord’s attention. I find $410 is a reasonable amount, which equates about $80 a week. I have taken into account that it was winter.
The tenant also claimed compensation because of problems with the wiring and because she had to pay for a plumber to unblock the sink not long after she moved in. She did not provide me with sufficient evidence to prove these claims and they are dismissed.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenant said there was a breach of quiet enjoyment because the tenant downstairs banged on the ceiling and made complaints to the landlord about noise. The landlord would then message the tenant and ask her to keep the noise down. The tenant said that she and her daughter lived normally in the unit but the downstairs tenant was unreasonable. She also felt harassed when the landlord assumed she was the one doing wrong. The RTA states that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I have read the messages and the emails between the tenant and the landlord and the owner during the tenancy. Based on these I am not persuaded the tenant has proved there was a breach of quiet enjoyment. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The bond is refunded to the landlord.
The tenant’s application for suppression is not allowed because she is not the most successful party and there is public interest in names when there are breaches of the RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4656770 — Property damage at 7B Zetland Street, Highbury, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4656770 — Property damage at 7B Zetland Street, Highbury, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the kitchen door?

Was there a breach of the HHS?

Should the tenant pay for replacement carpet?

Did the owner breach the duty to lodge the bond?

Should the tenant get compensation because of the maintenance?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the kitchen door?

Was there a breach of the HHS?

Should the tenant pay for replacement carpet?

Did the owner breach the duty to lodge the bond?

Should the tenant get compensation because of the maintenance?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions