How much money was awarded in case 4759081?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4759081?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4759081?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9866909-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4759081?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4759081?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4759081?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9866909-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Published tribunal order

Tenancy Tribunal case 4759081 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4759081 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Decided 25 Jan 2024 · Published 25 Jan 2024 · Application 4759081

Property damage
Rent arrears
Cleanliness

Party names are redacted in the official published order.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and Tenant names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] $1,062.89 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,042.45 [The tenant/s]: $1,157.55

Reasons

Background

The tenants vacated the premises on 7 November 2023.
The landlord’s application was filed on 7 December 2023. The application sought rent arrears, repairs, carpet cleaning, and rent to 5 December 2023.
The landlord’s application provided an incorrect email address for the tenant.
[Tenant 1] was not aware of the landlord’s application, and she did not receive notice of the hearing to take place in [Event location suppressed] on 22 January 2024.
[Tenant 1] filed her own application on 20 January. She became aware of the 22 January hearing when she received a text message reminder from Tenancy Services.
[Tenant 1] made herself available to attend the hearing by phone today. [The property manager/s] ([The property management company]) and [The landlord/s] (the owners of the property) attended the hearing in person at the [Event location suppressed] Court. Landlord application Rent arrears
[Tenant 1] did not dispute the claim for rent arrears. Garage door lock, carpet cleaning, trampoline removal
The claim seeks: a. The cost of replacing the garage door lock ($352.49). b. Carpet cleaning ($195.50). c. Removal and dumping of trampoline ($327.75).
[Tenant 1] acknowledged that her partner accidentally snapped a key in the garage door lock during the tenancy. She noted that the landlord provided a quote for the replacement of the lock, and she asked whether the landlord intended to do the work and whether the lock needed to be replaced.
[Tenant 1] acknowledged that the carpet was new at the beginning of the tenancy. She was not aware of any stains but accepted that there could be some because she had a young child at the property.
[Tenant 1] was not at the property in the last few days, and she accepts that her partner and his helpers may have forgotten about the trampoline, which was down the side of a bank near a stream.
The claim for changing the garage lock is proven. The landlord could not get the lock to work with a duplicate key. The lock was damaged, and it needs to be replaced. [Locksmith Company] provided a quote to replace the lock. The owners have not yet had the work done, but they confirmed that they intend to.
The carpets were cleaned on 22 December 2023. The landlords provided photographs which show some stains in the lounge. The claim is proven.
The trampoline has not been removed yet, but again the owners confirm that the work will be done. The amount claimed is based on a quote from [Removal company]. The travel and disposal costs on the quote are fair and reasonable and the time estimated for the job including travel (3 hours) is also reasonable. The hourly rate quoted, $65, is high for rubbish removal work. I will award three hours at $45 per hour plus dumping and travel. Rent to 5 December 2023
On 10 October the tenants gave notice to end the tenancy on 7 November 2023.
On 16 October, [Tenant 1] sent [The property manager/s] a text message asking whether it would be possible for them to remain at the property. [The property manager/s] replied that the owners would need to agree.
[The property manager/s] discussed the request with the owners. The owners did not consent to the tenants withdrawing the termination notice, but they were willing to extend the termination date to 5 December 2023.
On 26 October there was a phone conversation between [Tenant 1] and [The property manager/s]. [The property manager/s] passed on the offer to extend to 5 December. [The property manager/s] understood that [Tenant 1] verbally agreed to that offer. She asked [Tenant 1] to confirm her agreement by a text message.
[Tenant 1] submitted that she did not agree to the offer in that conversation. She needed time to think about their options. She did not send a text message.
On 3 November, the tenants confirmed that they were vacated on the original date of 7 November 2023.
A landlord or tenant who gives notice to terminate a tenancy may withdraw the notice, but only with the consent of the other party 1 .
Variation of the termination date requires the agreement of both parties.
In this instance the landlord has the burden of proof to establish that [Tenant 1] agreed to change the termination date. I accept that [The property manager/s] 1 Section 51(6)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 genuinely understood that [Tenant 1] agreed, and all of her subsequent actions are consistent with this understanding.
However I also accept [Tenant 1]’s oral evidence that she did not agree, and that this is why she did not send a text message to [The property manager/s] after their conversation.
My finding is that it is not proven that there was an agreement to vary the termination date. The notice was not withdrawn and therefore it remained in effect.
The tenancy ended on 7 November 2023. The tenants are not liable for rent beyond that date. Tenant application
[Tenant 1] seeks refund of the bond.
[Tenant 1] expressed her frustration about the length of time it took the landlords to file their application after the end of the tenancy.
[Tenant 1] disputed some parts of the landlord’s claim against the bond, in particular the claim for rent to 5 December 2023.
The application seeks compensation in respect of problem with the septic system.
[Tenant 1] began experiencing problems with the septic system within a few weeks of moving in. The toilets would clear very slowly.
The situation deteriorated to the point where the toilets would not clear at all.
She contacted the owner, who promptly arranged for a contractor to attend at the property the next day.
They removed the heavy concrete lid that covers the tank, and cleared the system to the best of their ability. Further work was required. It would be several weeks before a plumber could attend. They put a temporary lid over the tank (plywood, marine carpet, and wooden pallets).
The plumber attended and advised that several pipes needed to be replaced. That work, which involved digging up parts of the back lawn, was carried out over the course of two days.
The landlord gave the tenants $800.00 compensation.
The landlords acted very promptly and effectively in response to the septic problem. There was no breach of their duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
However, the problem did cause a loss of use / loss of amenity for the tenants that was more than minimal.
It was appropriate for the landlord to give the tenants compensation for that loss of amenity.
My finding is that the amount of compensation given to the tenants was appropriate. The tenants were without facilities entirely for only a brief period of time. After the contractor was first involved, which was the day after [Tenant 1] raised the issue with the owner, the system worked, albeit not perfectly, until the pipes were replaced.
The temporary cover over the septic tank caused [Tenant 1] some concern given that she has a young child. However, I accept that the owner and the contractor ensured that the cover was safe and effective.
There is no reasonable basis for me to make an award of further compensation to the tenants. Outcome, filing fee, name suppression
Both parties were satisfied that they had adequate opportunity to present arguments and evidence about the issues in front of the Tribunal. Both wanted the matter resolved as promptly as possible.
No further hearings are required.
Both parties were partially successful in their respective applications. Each must bear its own cost of the filing fee. Name suppression was requested by both parties. Name suppression is granted on the basis that the landlord succeeded in most of its compensation claims, but [Tenant 1] also succeeded in respect of the issues that were most important to her – release of the bond, and disputing the claim for rent beyond 7 November 2023.
The landlord will receive $1,042.45 from the bond. The balance will be released to the tenants.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and Tenant names and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] $1,062.89 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,042.45 [The tenant/s]: $1,157.55

Reasons

Background

The tenants vacated the premises on 7 November 2023.

The landlord’s application was filed on 7 December 2023. The application sought rent arrears, repairs, carpet cleaning, and rent to 5 December 2023.

The landlord’s application provided an incorrect email address for the tenant.

[Tenant 1] was not aware of the landlord’s application, and she did not receive notice of the hearing to take place in [Event location suppressed] on 22 January 2024.

[Tenant 1] filed her own application on 20 January. She became aware of the 22 January hearing when she received a text message reminder from Tenancy Services.

[Tenant 1] made herself available to attend the hearing by phone today. [The property manager/s] ([The property management company]) and [The landlord/s] (the owners of the property) attended the hearing in person at the [Event location suppressed] Court. Landlord application Rent arrears

[Tenant 1] did not dispute the claim for rent arrears. Garage door lock, carpet cleaning, trampoline removal

The claim seeks: a. The cost of replacing the garage door lock ($352.49). b. Carpet cleaning ($195.50). c. Removal and dumping of trampoline ($327.75).

[Tenant 1] acknowledged that her partner accidentally snapped a key in the garage door lock during the tenancy. She noted that the landlord provided a quote for the replacement of the lock, and she asked whether the landlord intended to do the work and whether the lock needed to be replaced.

[Tenant 1] acknowledged that the carpet was new at the beginning of the tenancy. She was not aware of any stains but accepted that there could be some because she had a young child at the property.

[Tenant 1] was not at the property in the last few days, and she accepts that her partner and his helpers may have forgotten about the trampoline, which was down the side of a bank near a stream.

The claim for changing the garage lock is proven. The landlord could not get the lock to work with a duplicate key. The lock was damaged, and it needs to be replaced. [Locksmith Company] provided a quote to replace the lock. The owners have not yet had the work done, but they confirmed that they intend to.

The carpets were cleaned on 22 December 2023. The landlords provided photographs which show some stains in the lounge. The claim is proven.

The trampoline has not been removed yet, but again the owners confirm that the work will be done. The amount claimed is based on a quote from [Removal company]. The travel and disposal costs on the quote are fair and reasonable and the time estimated for the job including travel (3 hours) is also reasonable. The hourly rate quoted, $65, is high for rubbish removal work. I will award three hours at $45 per hour plus dumping and travel. Rent to 5 December 2023

On 10 October the tenants gave notice to end the tenancy on 7 November 2023.

On 16 October, [Tenant 1] sent [The property manager/s] a text message asking whether it would be possible for them to remain at the property. [The property manager/s] replied that the owners would need to agree.

[The property manager/s] discussed the request with the owners. The owners did not consent to the tenants withdrawing the termination notice, but they were willing to extend the termination date to 5 December 2023.

On 26 October there was a phone conversation between [Tenant 1] and [The property manager/s]. [The property manager/s] passed on the offer to extend to 5 December. [The property manager/s] understood that [Tenant 1] verbally agreed to that offer. She asked [Tenant 1] to confirm her agreement by a text message.

[Tenant 1] submitted that she did not agree to the offer in that conversation. She needed time to think about their options. She did not send a text message.

On 3 November, the tenants confirmed that they were vacated on the original date of 7 November 2023.

A landlord or tenant who gives notice to terminate a tenancy may withdraw the notice, but only with the consent of the other party 1 .

Variation of the termination date requires the agreement of both parties.

In this instance the landlord has the burden of proof to establish that [Tenant 1] agreed to change the termination date. I accept that [The property manager/s] 1 Section 51(6)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 genuinely understood that [Tenant 1] agreed, and all of her subsequent actions are consistent with this understanding.

However I also accept [Tenant 1]’s oral evidence that she did not agree, and that this is why she did not send a text message to [The property manager/s] after their conversation.

My finding is that it is not proven that there was an agreement to vary the termination date. The notice was not withdrawn and therefore it remained in effect.

The tenancy ended on 7 November 2023. The tenants are not liable for rent beyond that date. Tenant application

[Tenant 1] seeks refund of the bond.

[Tenant 1] expressed her frustration about the length of time it took the landlords to file their application after the end of the tenancy.

[Tenant 1] disputed some parts of the landlord’s claim against the bond, in particular the claim for rent to 5 December 2023.

The application seeks compensation in respect of problem with the septic system.

[Tenant 1] began experiencing problems with the septic system within a few weeks of moving in. The toilets would clear very slowly.

The situation deteriorated to the point where the toilets would not clear at all.

She contacted the owner, who promptly arranged for a contractor to attend at the property the next day.

They removed the heavy concrete lid that covers the tank, and cleared the system to the best of their ability. Further work was required. It would be several weeks before a plumber could attend. They put a temporary lid over the tank (plywood, marine carpet, and wooden pallets).

The plumber attended and advised that several pipes needed to be replaced. That work, which involved digging up parts of the back lawn, was carried out over the course of two days.

The landlord gave the tenants $800.00 compensation.

The landlords acted very promptly and effectively in response to the septic problem. There was no breach of their duty to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

However, the problem did cause a loss of use / loss of amenity for the tenants that was more than minimal.

It was appropriate for the landlord to give the tenants compensation for that loss of amenity.

My finding is that the amount of compensation given to the tenants was appropriate. The tenants were without facilities entirely for only a brief period of time. After the contractor was first involved, which was the day after [Tenant 1] raised the issue with the owner, the system worked, albeit not perfectly, until the pipes were replaced.

The temporary cover over the septic tank caused [Tenant 1] some concern given that she has a young child. However, I accept that the owner and the contractor ensured that the cover was safe and effective.

There is no reasonable basis for me to make an award of further compensation to the tenants. Outcome, filing fee, name suppression

Both parties were satisfied that they had adequate opportunity to present arguments and evidence about the issues in front of the Tribunal. Both wanted the matter resolved as promptly as possible.

No further hearings are required.

Both parties were partially successful in their respective applications. Each must bear its own cost of the filing fee. Name suppression was requested by both parties. Name suppression is granted on the basis that the landlord succeeded in most of its compensation claims, but [Tenant 1] also succeeded in respect of the issues that were most important to her – release of the bond, and disputing the claim for rent beyond 7 November 2023.

The landlord will receive $1,042.45 from the bond. The balance will be released to the tenants.