What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4700806 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4700806?

Break Lease Costs: $650.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4700806?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4700806?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9749299-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4700806 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4700806?

Break Lease Costs: $650.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4700806?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4700806?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9749299-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4700806 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4700806. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Break Lease costs	$650.00		bunal. Looking at the sums claimed in a global sense, I order the tenant to pay $650.00 to the landlord.

Both parties attended this hearing on 8 December 2023.

The tenants attended the hearing by teleconference.

The landlord was represented by Ms Goodsell.

The tenancy of [Tenancy address suppressed] (“the premises”) commenced on 1 May 2023 and ended on 31 August 2023. This was a fixed term tenancy due to end on 29 October 2023. The tenants sought and the property manager granted leave to end the tenancy early.

The property manager has applied to the Tribunal for compensation for costs incurred as a result of the break of the fixed term tenancy, release of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The tenants have applied to the Tribunal for release of the bond, compensation for carpet cleaning, reimbursement of the filing fee and they dispute the sum claimed for the break lease fees.

There was some uncertainty as to the bond held at the Bond Centre. Enquiries have been made and the Bond Centre still holds the full bond of $3,000.00. Break Lease costs.

Section 44A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides in part; “(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 reasonable 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.”

The tenants applied to the landlord to break the fixed term tenancy.

The landlord consented to the break on the basis that any break lease costs were paid by the tenants.

The property manager initially provided the tenants with an estimate of the likely costs and then a final invoice for the costs. The tenants dispute the costs. The Tribunal’s role is to consider whether the costs sought are reasonable.

The landlord claims which are disputed by the tenants are as follows.

The property manager has applied an hourly rate of $80.00 plus GST to the work carried out in relation to the break lease.

The tenants say that a property manager is more likely to receive $35.00 per hour as a salary. In this matter the tenant seems to have confused the issue of a property managers salary with the charge out rate for that staff member.

As a starting point, I do not consider it unreasonable for a property management company to charge out a property manager at $80.00 plus GST per hour. The property manager supplied evidence in support of this level of fee.

Having come to that decision, the next issue is whether the time claimed for work relating to the break lease is reasonable. Advertising

The property manager has claimed one hour for her time and $115.00 in costs for advertising. It is clear from the evidence that new tenants were promptly found for the premises. I do not consider the claim to be unreasonable. Viewings

The property manager has claimed $53.33 for setting up the viewing, the viewing of the premises with prospective tenants and travel to the viewing, with $5.00 for costs. The tenants say that the actual viewing took no more than 20 minutes. It may well be that the property manager was only inside the premises for that period, but I do not consider that a reasonable costs for a viewing is limited to the time inside the premises. The costs charged are reasonable. Application processing/ background and credit checking/writing new tenancy agreement/ vacation inspection/ ingoing inspection for new tenants/preparing new tenant folder of google drive/induction of new tenant/ general admin relating to new tenancy.

The RTA allows a landlord to claim for expenses reasonably incurred as a result of the termination. This tenancy had another 2 months to run. The expenses claimed above would have inevitably been incurred by the landlord in obtaining new tenants. As an example, the property manager has claimed for carrying out a vacation inspection. I asked the property manager if they would have charged for this had the tenancy run its course. The response was “no”.

Had the tenancy had many more months to run, so that expenses were being incurred by the landlord well before they may otherwise have been, then more of the expenses claimed may have been reasonable. In the circumstances of this matter, where the tenancy had a further eight weeks to run, I do not think that is the position. It seems that the property manager is claiming costs that would normally pass to the landlord under the management agreement onto the departing tenants just 8 weeks out from the end of the tenancy.

I do not consider the total remaining break lease costs claimed to be reasonable. That does not mean that I do not think that the landlord cannot seek a contribution from the tenant towards those costs, but it would not in my view be reasonable to allow for the full claim.

In coming to what a “reasonable” sum may be, I have considered the particular circumstances of this matter and general break lease costs claims that come before the Tribunal. Looking at the sums claimed in a global sense, I order the tenant to pay $650.00 to the landlord. The sum includes GST.

The tenants were concerned that the landlord has refused to provide them with receipts for the work claimed. Section 44A RTA requires the landlord to provide an itemised costing. It does not make the provision of receipts mandatory. A failure to provide receipts may become an evidentiary issue where claims are disputed, but there is not statutory obligation to provide receipts. Carpet Cleaning

The tenancy agreement entered into by the parties contains conflicting clauses. Clause 34 requires carpets to be commercially cleaned at the end of the tenancy “if required”. Clause 49, which is a “pet clause”, requires carpets and rugs to be commercially cleaned.

The requirement for cleaning under the RTA is that a tenant leave premises “reasonably clean and tidy”. If commercial carpet cleaning is required to meet that standard, then commercial carpet cleaning may be required by a landlord. It cannot however simply be a standard requirement. The RTA provides that a tenant may not be required to do more under the terms of a tenancy agreement than is required under the RTA.

The tenants said that they thought that they were obliged to have the carpets cleaned and proceeded to engage a commercial carpet cleaner. They paid the cleaner $220.00 and provided a copy of the invoice. The property manager offered to have the owner reimburse the tenants for the payment. The tenants refused this offer. The tenants may have confused the roles of the other parties. The property management company acts as agent for the landlord owners. The property management company is not directly liable to the tenant for their actions during the course of the tenancy. The settlement offer having been declined does not prevent the tenants from seeking an order from the Tribunal. The difficulty that I have is that no evidence was presented as to condition of the carpets prior to the carpet cleaning being conducted. It may be that the carpets were not reasonably clean and tidy at that time and that commercial carpet cleaning was required to achieve that standard. The onus of proving this claim is on the tenant. The evidence provided by the tenants is not sufficient to persuade me to the required civil standard and the application for compensation is dismissed.

The tenants have further claimed that the property manager has included the pet carpet cleaning clause, which is invalid and seek exemplary damages. The imposition of exemplary damages is not something that is considered lightly by the Tribunal. Further, it requires the property manager to act intentionally. In other words, to have turned their mind to the imposition of a clause which they knew to be invalid. The evidence put before me does not disclose that as the position. The property manager has throughout acted on the basis that a clause of this nature was valid. In those circumstances, I am unable to say that the property manager, knowing the clause to be invalid, has proceeded to include it in the tenancy agreement. The application is dismissed.

The break lease agreement entered into by the parties requires the tenants to pay rent through until 31 August 2023. The agreement required the tenants to vacate the property two days earlier so that cleaning, inspections and the like could be carried out. The tenants do not seek compensation for this matter and as the Tribunal does not issue decision on matters which are moot, no order is made.

I do not consider that either party has been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and I make not order for reimbursement of the filing fee.

The tenants seek name suppression as they carry out a public role where personal safety is of great significance. I consider that suppression of the tenants details is justified as a result of those circumstances. Suppression of the tenants’ names and details is ordered.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4700806. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Break Lease costs	$650.00		bunal. Looking at the sums claimed in a global sense, I order the tenant to pay $650.00 to the landlord.