What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4674353 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4674353?

Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to tenant; Relisting Costs: $267.50 awarded to landlord; Rent 12.8.23 To 15.8,23: $370.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4674353?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4674353?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10059655-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4674353 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4674353?

Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to tenant; Relisting Costs: $267.50 awarded to landlord; Rent 12.8.23 To 15.8,23: $370.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4674353?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4674353?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10059655-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room 1505, Unit/Flat 1505, 207 Federal Street, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4674353 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4674353 — net $12.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent 12.8.23 to 15.8,23	$370.00		Rent 12.8.23 to 15.8,23
Relisting costs	$267.50		Relisting costs
Compensation: premises not clean		$650.00	premises not clean
Total award	$637.50	$650.00
Net award		$12.50
Bond		$2,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$12.50

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Upartner Property Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $12.50 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants brought an application seeking compensation for: a. the premise not being provided adequately clean; and b. for return of their bond.
The landlord then filed a cross application seeking: a. additional rent; b. compensation for re listing expenses; and c. compensation for cleaning the bathroom at the end of the tenancy.
The total of the landlord’s claim is $957.93 but for no satisfactory reason, arrangements have not been made for the uncontested portion of the tenants’ bond to be returned to them. They have been deprived of the $1,642.07 that they are entitled to, since the tenancy ended in mid-August 2023. Background
The premises became available while the tenants were living in [Country]. They arranged for friends to view it. The parties then entered into a fixed tenancy agreement for a term from 28 June 2023 to 2 July 2024.
The tenants arrived in New Zealand and moved into the premises on Friday 7 July 2023. They viewed the premises with the property manager.
The tenants were concerned about the cleanliness of the property finding a large number of cockroaches present. They immediately raised their concerns with the property manager who arranged for a pest controller to visit and treat the premises the following Monday. The tenants remained concerned about the cockroaches. The property manager contacted the pest controller who advised that it could be up to two weeks before the eradication was complete.
The tenants also raised concerns about the cleanliness of other parts of the premises and carpet odours. The landlord arranged for a contractor to visit, with instructions to deal with any concerns the tenants had. The tenants’ evidence is that the contractor cleaned a small area of carpet by the entranceway but that was all. They say he said he was going to return to finish the rest of the work but did not.
On 13 July 2023 the tenants told the property manager that they wanted to end the tenancy. The tenants say that the property manager agreed they could, although from reviewing the exchanges between the parties, it seems clear that that the landlord’s agreement was on the basis that the tenants would still need to pay rent until a new tenancy was in place.
The tenants moved out on 11 August 2023 and paid rent through to that date. The landlord had found new tenants and that tenancy started on 16 August 2023.

Are the tenants liable for the additional rent?

The landlord claims rent from 12 August 2023 to 15 August 2023, the day before the new tenancy started.
The parties had entered into a fixed term tenancy, so the tenants were obliged to pay rent for the whole of the fixed term.
The tenants having made it clear to the landlord that they wanted to end the tenancy before then, the landlord had a responsibility to take reasonable steps to mitigate the consequences of the tenants’ early termination (see s.49 RTA). I find that the landlord did so, by re listing the premises and finding new tenants.
The tenants must compensate the landlord for the loss of rent caused by their early termination of the tenancy unless, due to the landlord’s breaches of their agreement or the RTA, the tenants were entitled to cancel the agreement.

Did the landlord breach its obligations?

Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Breaching that obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has provided evidence that the premises were commercially cleaned at the end of the previous tenancy. An invoice from cleaning contractors dated 23 June 2023 records that six hours of cleaning and a carpet wash were undertaken on that date. Photographs from the cleaning contractor were also provided.
Photographs taken by the tenants when they moved in however, show that some areas of the premises were clearly not clean. Some surfaces are shown to be covered in grime and what appears to be cockroach faeces. The area under the refrigerator had obviously not been cleaned and was quite filthy. The prevalence of cockroaches found by the tenants is not surprising. I accept the tenants’ evidence that there were odours in the carpets.
The landlord’s failure to ensure that the premises were provided in a reasonably clean condition is a breach of its obligations for which compensation should be awarded to the tenants, to compensate for the impact of that breach on their use and enjoyment of the premises.
To recognise those impacts and also the effect on their right to quiet enjoyment of the premises from having to be in negotiation with the property manager and dealing with tradespeople from immediately the tenancy began, I find that compensation of 1 week’s rent is reasonable.
The landlord had arranged for the premises to be commercially cleaned before the tenancy began and also responded to the tenants’ requests for pest control and for other cleaning work to be done (although the additional cleaning work was not fully completed before the tenants gave notice). That being so, I do not consider it would be just to award exemplary damages against the landlord for its breach.
I also find that the landlord’s breach was not sufficiently fundamental to entitle the tenants to cancel the tenancy. There are measures available to the tenants under the Residential Tenancy Act to require that the breaches be remedied.
Had the landlord refused to respond to their requests for pest treatment and for more cleaning to be done, I may well have considered that the tenants were entitled to end the tenancy. However, the evidence suggests that the landlord was reasonably responsive to their requests to address the situation – even though the work was not all done before the tenants’ patience was exhausted.
I find that as the tenants were not entitled to cancel the agreement, they should compensate the landlord for the losses incurred by their ending the tenancy early.

Is the landlord entitled to relisting costs?

The landlord claims compensation for the re listing costs it says were caused by the tenants’ early termination of the tenancy, being: a. Trade Me listing fees - $219.00; b. time and travel for viewings - $230.00; c. credit check fees - $57.50.
Section 44A RTA provides that: “(1) A landlord who consents to......... termination of the tenancy in accordance with section 50(1)(d) is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the.......... termination. (2) A landlord who seeks to recover expenses from a tenant in accordance with subsection (1) must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant.”
I put it to the property manager that the expenses claimed do not represent losses incurred but are simply the costs for finding a new tenant that would inevitably have been born anyway, at the end of the fixed term.
The property manager’s evidence is that the claimed expenses do represent a loss incurred to the landlord. She says they are unable to be recovered from the owner because they were incurred during the course of a fixed term tenancy.
Accepting that evidence, I find that the landlord is entitled to recover the out of pocket expenses incurred to find new tenants, namely the listing fee and credit check fees. In my view the time and travel involved in viewings do not constitute “expenses incurred” by reason of the tenants’ breach but are part of the landlord’s usual business operations.

Is the landlord entitled to compensation for cleaning costs?

The landlord says that at the end of the tenancy the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy except that the toilet and bathroom needed additional cleaning, for which a cost of $80.00 was incurred.
Photographs were provided of the toilet and of a drain trap with a large quantity of hair in it.
The cleaning done in June 2023 does not, in some respects, appear to have been a “deep clean.” it seems to me entirely possible that they hair residues were there at the beginning of the tenancy and amount if it shown in the photos seems unlikely to have resulted from such a short period of use by the tenants. The tenants provided photos of the drain from the start of the tenancy which they say show hair already there. but the photos do not show that clearly enough to rely on.
Photographs of the toilet bowl from before the tenancy, show it looking very little different than at the end of the tenancy.
I did not find it proved that the tenants breached their end of tenancy obligations, and that claim is declined.
As both parties have had claims upheld no order is made regarding the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4674353 — net $12.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent 12.8.23 to 15.8,23	$370.00		Rent 12.8.23 to 15.8,23
Relisting costs	$267.50		Relisting costs
Compensation: premises not clean		$650.00	premises not clean
Total award	$637.50	$650.00
Net award		$12.50
Bond		$2,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$12.50

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Upartner Property Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $12.50 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants brought an application seeking compensation for: a. the premise not being provided adequately clean; and b. for return of their bond.
The landlord then filed a cross application seeking: a. additional rent; b. compensation for re listing expenses; and c. compensation for cleaning the bathroom at the end of the tenancy.
The total of the landlord’s claim is $957.93 but for no satisfactory reason, arrangements have not been made for the uncontested portion of the tenants’ bond to be returned to them. They have been deprived of the $1,642.07 that they are entitled to, since the tenancy ended in mid-August 2023. Background
The premises became available while the tenants were living in [Country]. They arranged for friends to view it. The parties then entered into a fixed tenancy agreement for a term from 28 June 2023 to 2 July 2024.
The tenants arrived in New Zealand and moved into the premises on Friday 7 July 2023. They viewed the premises with the property manager.
The tenants were concerned about the cleanliness of the property finding a large number of cockroaches present. They immediately raised their concerns with the property manager who arranged for a pest controller to visit and treat the premises the following Monday. The tenants remained concerned about the cockroaches. The property manager contacted the pest controller who advised that it could be up to two weeks before the eradication was complete.
The tenants also raised concerns about the cleanliness of other parts of the premises and carpet odours. The landlord arranged for a contractor to visit, with instructions to deal with any concerns the tenants had. The tenants’ evidence is that the contractor cleaned a small area of carpet by the entranceway but that was all. They say he said he was going to return to finish the rest of the work but did not.
On 13 July 2023 the tenants told the property manager that they wanted to end the tenancy. The tenants say that the property manager agreed they could, although from reviewing the exchanges between the parties, it seems clear that that the landlord’s agreement was on the basis that the tenants would still need to pay rent until a new tenancy was in place.
The tenants moved out on 11 August 2023 and paid rent through to that date. The landlord had found new tenants and that tenancy started on 16 August 2023.

Are the tenants liable for the additional rent?

The landlord claims rent from 12 August 2023 to 15 August 2023, the day before the new tenancy started.
The parties had entered into a fixed term tenancy, so the tenants were obliged to pay rent for the whole of the fixed term.
The tenants having made it clear to the landlord that they wanted to end the tenancy before then, the landlord had a responsibility to take reasonable steps to mitigate the consequences of the tenants’ early termination (see s.49 RTA). I find that the landlord did so, by re listing the premises and finding new tenants.
The tenants must compensate the landlord for the loss of rent caused by their early termination of the tenancy unless, due to the landlord’s breaches of their agreement or the RTA, the tenants were entitled to cancel the agreement.

Did the landlord breach its obligations?

Under section 45, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Breaching that obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has provided evidence that the premises were commercially cleaned at the end of the previous tenancy. An invoice from cleaning contractors dated 23 June 2023 records that six hours of cleaning and a carpet wash were undertaken on that date. Photographs from the cleaning contractor were also provided.
Photographs taken by the tenants when they moved in however, show that some areas of the premises were clearly not clean. Some surfaces are shown to be covered in grime and what appears to be cockroach faeces. The area under the refrigerator had obviously not been cleaned and was quite filthy. The prevalence of cockroaches found by the tenants is not surprising. I accept the tenants’ evidence that there were odours in the carpets.
The landlord’s failure to ensure that the premises were provided in a reasonably clean condition is a breach of its obligations for which compensation should be awarded to the tenants, to compensate for the impact of that breach on their use and enjoyment of the premises.
To recognise those impacts and also the effect on their right to quiet enjoyment of the premises from having to be in negotiation with the property manager and dealing with tradespeople from immediately the tenancy began, I find that compensation of 1 week’s rent is reasonable.
The landlord had arranged for the premises to be commercially cleaned before the tenancy began and also responded to the tenants’ requests for pest control and for other cleaning work to be done (although the additional cleaning work was not fully completed before the tenants gave notice). That being so, I do not consider it would be just to award exemplary damages against the landlord for its breach.
I also find that the landlord’s breach was not sufficiently fundamental to entitle the tenants to cancel the tenancy. There are measures available to the tenants under the Residential Tenancy Act to require that the breaches be remedied.
Had the landlord refused to respond to their requests for pest treatment and for more cleaning to be done, I may well have considered that the tenants were entitled to end the tenancy. However, the evidence suggests that the landlord was reasonably responsive to their requests to address the situation – even though the work was not all done before the tenants’ patience was exhausted.
I find that as the tenants were not entitled to cancel the agreement, they should compensate the landlord for the losses incurred by their ending the tenancy early.

Is the landlord entitled to relisting costs?

The landlord claims compensation for the re listing costs it says were caused by the tenants’ early termination of the tenancy, being: a. Trade Me listing fees - $219.00; b. time and travel for viewings - $230.00; c. credit check fees - $57.50.
Section 44A RTA provides that: “(1) A landlord who consents to......... termination of the tenancy in accordance with section 50(1)(d) is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the.......... termination. (2) A landlord who seeks to recover expenses from a tenant in accordance with subsection (1) must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant.”
I put it to the property manager that the expenses claimed do not represent losses incurred but are simply the costs for finding a new tenant that would inevitably have been born anyway, at the end of the fixed term.
The property manager’s evidence is that the claimed expenses do represent a loss incurred to the landlord. She says they are unable to be recovered from the owner because they were incurred during the course of a fixed term tenancy.
Accepting that evidence, I find that the landlord is entitled to recover the out of pocket expenses incurred to find new tenants, namely the listing fee and credit check fees. In my view the time and travel involved in viewings do not constitute “expenses incurred” by reason of the tenants’ breach but are part of the landlord’s usual business operations.

Is the landlord entitled to compensation for cleaning costs?

The landlord says that at the end of the tenancy the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy except that the toilet and bathroom needed additional cleaning, for which a cost of $80.00 was incurred.
Photographs were provided of the toilet and of a drain trap with a large quantity of hair in it.
The cleaning done in June 2023 does not, in some respects, appear to have been a “deep clean.” it seems to me entirely possible that they hair residues were there at the beginning of the tenancy and amount if it shown in the photos seems unlikely to have resulted from such a short period of use by the tenants. The tenants provided photos of the drain from the start of the tenancy which they say show hair already there. but the photos do not show that clearly enough to rely on.
Photographs of the toilet bowl from before the tenancy, show it looking very little different than at the end of the tenancy.
I did not find it proved that the tenants breached their end of tenancy obligations, and that claim is declined.
As both parties have had claims upheld no order is made regarding the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4674353 — Cleanliness at Room 1505, Unit/Flat 1505, 207 Federal Street, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4674353 — Cleanliness at Room 1505, Unit/Flat 1505, 207 Federal Street, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for the additional rent?

Did the landlord breach its obligations?

Is the landlord entitled to relisting costs?

Is the landlord entitled to compensation for cleaning costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for the additional rent?

Did the landlord breach its obligations?

Is the landlord entitled to relisting costs?

Is the landlord entitled to compensation for cleaning costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions