What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4677912 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4677912?

The reconciled net award was $2,388.04.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677912?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677912?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10261290-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4677912 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4677912?

The reconciled net award was $2,388.04.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677912?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677912?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10261290-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

4 Grove Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4677912 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4677912 — net $2,388.04 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$2,388.04

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately. 2. must pay immediately, calculated as shown in table below: Compensation: increased rental due to unlawful notice given to terminate tenancy $1,093.00 Compensation: moving truck $274.60 Compensation: general damages $1,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $2,388.04

The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] appeared in person. Mr Vaifale appeared for the landlord by telephone.

The tenancy began on 22 January 2022 and ended on 19 July 2023

The tenant filed an application on 7 September 2023 seeking: a. Refund of their bond; and b. Compensation for the landlord giving notice to terminate the tenancy unlawfully.

The tenant’s claim proceeded to a hearing scheduled on 16 January 2024 but the hearing had to be adjourned as the landlord filed a cross-claim that morning seeking. a. Compensation in the amount of $441.13 for curtain cleaning; and b. The return and/or replacement of missing chattels from the garage.

Each party bears the onus of proving their clam to the civil standard, that is, on the balance of probabilities.

For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence filed in this matter but the parties should be aware that I have carefully considered all of the evidence and the parties’ submissions. The tenants’ claim and landlord’s response

The tenants say that on 21 June 2023 they were served with a notice under section 51 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 giving them 90 days to end the tenancy.

The notice did not specify the grounds on which notice was given but the tenants gave evidence that the property manager explained that the house was going to be renovated (with the floors to be polyurethaned) and that it would not be possible for them to remain while the work was carried out.

The tenants said that they were very disappointed but were resigned to the situation and so immediately set about looking for a new place to live as they knew that rentals were in short supply. As soon as they found a new place (which was similar but at a higher rental) and so gave 28 days’ notice to the landlord, as they were entitled to do. The tenants moved out on 19 July 2023.

The tenants explained that they incurred considerable costs in moving as they had to take time off work to look for a new place, and to spent time moving, cleaning and organising all of their things. They said that it was a very inconvenient time particularly as one of them had a broken arm.

The tenants explained that after they moved out they were shocked to discover that the property had been listed on trademe for rent very soon after and that no renovations had taken place.

Mr Vaifale explained that the owners of the property intended to return to New Zealand and so intended to renovate the property prior to their return and then move in. However after serving the tenants with a 90 day notice the landlords were disappointed that the tenants then gave notice themselves, as it meant that the property would be untenanted for a period. So the landlord advertised the property seeking a fixed term tenancy of either four or six months. Discussion and findings

Landlords cannot give a 90-day termination notice without a valid reason under s 51(1) or (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Section 51(2)(f) provides that a landlord may terminate period tenancy by giving 90 days’ notice if “extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner, and- (i)It would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken; and (ii)The work is to begin, or material steps towards it are to be undertaken, within 90 days after the termination date...”

Under Section 60AA RTA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.

At the hearing it was unclear whether the landlord intended to renovate or to sell but the justification given to the tenants was that extensive renovations were to be carried out (flooring) which meant that they could not stay in the tenancy.

However when the property manager and the owner discussed a further short- term rental to a new tenant by email on 27 July 2023 they discussed the new tenant leaving the house for three days while the floors were done, and that the new tenant could stay with a friend or could be housed in a motel.

I do appreciate that plans can change and that the owners were trying to move back to New Zealand and wanted to do some renovations before they moved in. However the law recognises that tenants face considerable upheaval when given notice to end their tenancy and so the law in relation to giving notice in such circumstances is strict. The renovations must be so extensive that it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenants to remain in occupation.

Having considered all of the evidence, I find that renovations that were to be carried out were not so extensive that it would not have been reasonably practicable for the tenants to remain. If it was considered appropriate for a potential short-term tenant to remain in the tenancy while the renovations took place then it should have been possible for these tenants to remain.

I find that the landlord gave notice to these tenants knowing that they were not entitled to do so. The tenants’ claim is proved.

The tenants sought various compensation and I have considered the claim for compensation carefully.

Ultimately I accept that the tenants had to pay an increased rent and so award their claim for that increased rent, as claimed, to the end of the 90 day period being $1,093.00 I also award the cost of the moving truck in the amount of $274.60. I do not consider it appropriate to make any award for lost wages for looking for a new rental, time spent moving, rubbish removal, new furniture etc as claimed. I do recognise that the tenants suffered upheaval inconvenience and so consider that an award of general damages in the amount of $1,000 to be appropriate recognition of that. The landord’s claim and tenant’s response

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Curtains

The landlord claims that when the tenants left they discovered that the curtains had been stored in the garage and were mouldy. They had the curtains professionally cleaned at a cost of $641.13 (invoice provided) and seek recovery of $441.13 from the tenants on the basis the curtains were not new at the start of the tenancy.

The landlord was unable to provide any photos of the curtains from the start of the tenancy (apart from two photos which do not show the condition of the curtains in any detail) but provided a move-in inspection report which records the conditions of the curtains as “good”.

The tenants said that when they moved in a different property was managing the property. They explained that they were not happy with the state of the curtains (as they were worn and had some mould) and so told the property manager that they would purchase their own curtains. They say that it was agreed that they would store the landlord’s curtains in a box in the garage.

[Tenant 2]’s mother attended the hearing and gave evidence that she came over on the day that the tenants first moved in and noticed that the curtains were old and mouldy. She said that she suggested that the tenants purchase their own curtains and not use the landlord’s curtains.

When the tenants received the 90 day notice from the landlord (which included a checklist for cleaning which included “all drapes to be washed”) they responded with their own notice advising “the curtains that were up when we moved in were covered in mold, so we will leave these boxed up I the garage (as we advised the previous property manager), and take ours with us.”

The tenants also expressed surprise at the landlord’s claim because they offered to leave the curtains that they had purchased behind at the property but their offer was rejected. They provided an email to the Tribunal confirming this.

I do not find the landlord’s claim in respect of the curtains to be proved.

The landlord’s claim for compensation for curtain cleaning is dismissed. Garage

The landlord also claims that the tenants removed various items from the garage when they left, as follows: Aluminium ladder, yellow extension cord, large hook, washing basket, refill of sealant, house reel and hose, x2 brooms, gardening forks, long handled spade, spray bottle, watering can, pruner, snail pellets, blue tarpaulin, paint roller, paint handle, gardening spade, gardening fork.

The landlord provided various photos showing a ladder, a hose and various gardening tools.

At the hearing Mr Vaifale said that the landlord sought the sum of $977.00 based on the replacement cost of the items from Bunnings, but no invoices were provided to confirm this amount.

The tenants explained that they cleaned the property when they left but the landlord asked them to come back and do further cleaning and to remove all of the items from the garage and to clean the floor in the garage. They said that most of the things in the garage belonged to the landlord and were old and broken so they disposed of them, with the exception of the ladder which they gave to a neighbour.

The tenants say that the property manager initially told them that they had a done a great job and would receive the bond back, and they were surprised to then be told by email on 28 August 2023 that the property manager had now obtained a copy of the initial more in report from the previous property manager and that they had removed items from the property that were shown in the initial inspection report.

I do not consider that the landlord has proved their claim. None of the claimed items were included in the chattels list and it does not seem that there was any clarity about what the tenants should remove and what should remain. The landlord has not provided any evidence of the replacement cost in any event.

The landlord’s claim for compensation for the various chattels is dismissed.

At the hearing the tenants said that they thought that they had to remove everything from the garage and so had given the ladder to the neighbour. They said that they would use their best endeavours to recover the ladder and return it to the landlord. Filing fee and name suppression

Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

As the tenants have been the substantially successful parties, they are entitled to an order for name suppression pursuant to section 95A RTA. I do not consider that there is any public interest that outweighs the granting of suppression in this case.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4677912 — net $2,388.04 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$2,388.04